In case you’ve been living under a rock, Kim Davis is the disgruntled Kentucky clerk who has recently acquired her 15 minutes of fame by refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples…
Gay marriage – after the recent SCOTUS ruling – is the ceremony now simply referred to as “marriage.”
And now Davis has been placed in time out at the local hoosegow to think about it.
She cites as her reasoning, religious freedom and defense of her beliefs. I pondered why she didn’t feel compelled to take the same stance with straight couples marrying for the second, third or fourth time?
Same Bible, same principles, right?
I have to take credit for seeing the big picture before anyone else in the media posed this question. However in a clear case of not seeing the forest for the trees, I missed the much bigger picture. That Davis herself is working on her fourth marriage. But to be fair, its actually only her third. I’m not sure who would want to marry her even once, but she seems to have found a man willing to go two rounds with her.
So Davis hates “fags,” just like the good folks at Westboro Baptist in Topeka.
Yet she had twins out of wedlock, just like Ms. Phelps, the reigning Westboro cult leader. Although, to be fair, Phelps only had one. I’m guessing they both eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers. So wouldn’t it make sense that Davis would have unanimous support from her kindred spirits in hate from the picketing right wing nuts?
Nope, Westboro hates Davis too.
Why? Westboro has shark like ability to smell chum in the water and they’ve not had a good cause of late, until now.
And Davis is an adulteress…
So in their Bible, she’s no better than the “fags.” To prove their point, they are currently contemplating going to Kentucky to protest her.
I can only hope someone shows up with a sign that reads, “Pot, meet Kettle.”
My position, from day one, has been Davis has every right in the world to oppose issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. But she can’t do it while holding her position; that’s her job.
Seriously, if she wanted to use the Bible as her basis for refusal, she’d have to overlook the entire chapter of Romans 13.
“Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.”
Davis needs to reread her Bible as it also makes it very clear, in Malachi 2:16, that “I hate divorce, says the Lord God.” The Bible gives two acceptable reasons for divorce, sexual immorality, as found in Matthew 5:32 and abandonment by an unbeliever, in 1 Corinthians 7:15.
Even in those two cases, the Bible doesn’t demand, require or encourage divorce, it allows an exception for it.
In the 1st chapter Paul the Well Coiffed Scribe, I happen to believe any form of abuse – personal, physical or substance – also fits as a perfectly sound reason, but that’s just my opinion.
No loving God intended for a woman to live in that hell.
I’m not sure if Ms. Davis is looking for her 15 minutes or truly standing up for her beliefs. I don’t know her heart, I’m not God. But it sure would seem this is an ideal application of the verse that talks about getting the log out of your eye before you try to remove the splinter from your brothers.
Hate is an ugly mistress, and it’s two sides of the same coin.
glad you’re back wislon. good to see your name in bold again. got tired of you
using other phony names. Its not like you.
You made a comment on an earlier story and I need to address those.
1. you are not fat boy! that’s rush. He was fat boy til he got hooked on the
pain relievers and percosettes and oxycontin but he’s still fat boy to me and
for years I’ve referred to him as such.
2. for many years I have been an advocate against domestic violence.
long before kcc was established. I have provided gifts/vehicles/toys/cash /clothes furniture etc to provide relief to these victims. Icould care less about your
personal life and what you do in it. I don’t know you..have never seen you…
don’t care to know you….and even though I’ve offered to have a drink I would never
show because of the continued harassment against me/fmily/friends etc. that
you have written on kcc . So much for that. I don’t know if yuve been involved
in domestic violence..haven’t seen your name mentioned and to be honest that’s
your life. As I have noted on kcc and many other major blogs I have advocated
that many crimes deserve to be seen in the community. They did it with
johns and prostitutes (which really is a victimless crime and with all the affairs
and sights like Ashley on the net it’s not what it once was….its bad…its immoral…
its wrong…end of story. ) I don’t know what yu do in your previous life…I do
know that the sheriffs dept publishes an inmate page on its site. Have seen people
on there I know and other’s probably know. Have I seen your’s? no…but when I
get achance to advocate for the victims of domestic violence I do it. If anyone
who reads this blog over the time I’ve been on herer….which was longer than
you have been….has read my blog/comments you know this issue is very
important to me. Why? I really don’t know. Just that I’ve seen the end result of
this type of crime and its horrible for the victims. If you’re afraid of my
putting someones name on here…don’t worry….that’s not what I advocate and
I’m not a sheriff and I m not one to raise serious sh*t . But I do see a place where
the government/county can possibly cut down on this type of crime. They post
sex offenders names and addresses…why not those guilty of domestic violence.
Maybe that’s th answer to this problem. I don’t know. But I’ve seen the
end result and it ain’t pretty. I will never publish anyones name guilty of any
crime…its not my place. The law decides tat matter. So don’ worry….Harley
is not referring to any one person in my tirades against domestic violence.
In the 1st chapter Paul the Well Coiffed Scribe, I happen to believe any form of abuse – personal, physical or substance – also fits as a perfectly sound reason, but that’s just my opinion. you wrote this…so we can agree on something for once!!!!!!!
its a common crime…I’ve seen the victims…I support the victims and that’s
about as far as it goes. You don’t have to worry or make conjectures on your
part as to who is mentioned on those sites….and I don’t need you to explain
yourself. You live with your own god in that case.
As far as this woman…. maybe the two people wanting a license should go
where they can get one without all this bull crap. We’re seeing so muchgon
on in the world…is this really that important or do we focus on the more
important things we can change and make right in the world.
lets all move on….we’ve got bigger problems to solve!
what a waste of time andeergy…go find a clerk who will marry you and
get this subject behind us.
who cares how many timesthe lady has been married/divorced?
is that impoortnant…..if a jewish personwalks into a subway and asks for
kosher salami and they say we don’t carry it..walk out and go find it.
how stupid have we become.
who cares how many tmes the lady has been married…maybe introduce
her to glaze!!!!! she’s not a beautiful lady but neither was the vanilla betty.
she could have 10 kids for all I care.
why are we so engrossed in this miniscule crap that it becomes news.
the gay guys need to gofind someone to marry them…exchange nuptials
and move on.
this is not important.
glazes story on tom brady…now that’s important!
Once again, genius, you have no reading comprehension skills. The total number of times she’s been married is important for ONE REASON. Sin is sin in God’s eyes. She had illegitimate twins, married four times herself, yet wants to over look HER SIN and protest someone else’s. In this case, gays and their desire to marry.
Let me give you the Cliff Notes. She is/has been a sinner.
She wants to deny marriage licenses to gays, because that’s SIN to her.
Her sin is justifiable to her.
Gays sin is reprehensible to her.
To God, sin is sin; she’s no better than those she protests.
I hope that helps…
you’re comments are not important.
you are not important.
her personal life is not important.
her sins are not important.
her divorces or children out of wedlock are not important.
and you know nothing about the bible sir.
why is it a jew has to correct you on the bible?
why is it a jew has to refresh your memory about what actually
the bible says.
geeeeeeeesh…..HEARNE….STOP THIS LUNACY!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude/wislon/: we’re all sinners….and you are the last
one to cast stones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\
Bible class for sinners will begin next sunday at 8am.
Be there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Geeez, you’re amazing. I quote verses from the Bible and your only comment is I know nothing about the Bible. I’m putting you back on ignore. Anything else is just feeding the troll.
No one claimed to be sinless. The point was, since you’re reading this on the short bus is, we tend to be OK with our “sins” while expressing deep disdain for other people’s sin. It’s really pretty simple, but Harley, its a known fact; you only skim for the basic plot so you can go straight to the insults.
Go enjoy the rest of your weekend, you’re going to have your hands full really soon. And you keep taking the bait.
Your argument that because she has sinned before she should continue to sin now doesn’t seem logical. If I murder someone does that mean that I am forever forced to murder again and again and again? I can’t repent for my prior transgression and resolve to avoid the near occasion of sin? That is a basic precept of Christianity. The central teaching of reconciliation is to move passed what you have done, and to what you will do. We can’t change what we have done, but we can change what we will do. And I think that is a great way to live your life, christian or not.
All of that said. I wouldn’t have issued the licenses either. But I would resign my position and allow a replacement to be instituted. And I don’t think the court would have jailed her, or would it have been this big of a deal if she had just said. “Listen, when I took the job, I could do the job. I could uphold the rule of law and the rule of God. But given changes in the rule of law, I cannot in good conscience continue to carry out the duties of my position. I will continue to serve as the Clerk until a replacement can be named. During that time I will not issue any marriage licenses.”
People could have respected that, and it would have been a non-issue.
Lohengrin, you said, “Your argument that because she has sinned before she should continue to sin now doesn’t seem logical.”
That wasn’t at all my argument. I was trying to illustrate how we all tend to hate someone else’s sin while overlooking our own.
She is willing to condemn someone else, in this case, gay marriage, while overlooking her four marriages and twins out of wedlock.
I wouldn’t suggest she or anyone else should “continue” sinning, for what ever reason.
Thanks for your comment, appreciate you reading and commenting…
“I was trying to illustrate how we all tend to hate someone else’s sin while overlooking our own.” Yes, but hate is a state of mind. Issuing a marriage license is a state of action.
You are speaking of Matthew 7:3-4 3″Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4″Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?”
Interestingly, Jesus addresses both states, mind in verse 3 and action in verse 4. But I don’t embellish these words as a mandate to act against my conscience. My understanding of the widely covered teachings of His Holiness, Pope Francis is this very teaching of Jesus. Not that I should support sin, but rather, that I should worry about perfecting myself, before I worry about the perfection of others. That is what is so beautiful about the teachings and emphasis of His Holiness, Pope Francis.
Ironically, this is also a basic premise of the founding of the Republic. The Republic of the United States of America is based on the idea (if not always the practice) that there is room for a vast diversity of self-determined governance. That Missouri does not have to agree with the ideas of Kansas, but it doesn’t have the right to interfere. Unfortunately, the vast expanse of a strong central government has deteriorated the ability of diversity among states, instead favoring a more uniform set of beliefs
Now without judging her from my armchair, I will say on face value I don’t think I would have responded as she has. I would draw on the teaching of action in verse 4, and the emphasis of His Holiness, Pope Francis. There are many ways to uphold both the rule of law and the rule of God.
We do not say you cannot be a prison guard if you object of capital punishment. We offer moral objection exceptions to prison guards. The Clerk could have very easily said, I will not, and I will not compel my deputies to issue marriage licenses if they have a moral objection. I will, however, ensure that there a deputy available to accommodate the needs of all my district’s citizens.
If I found moral objection to even facilitating such an accommodation, then I would face a contradiction. I would also find moral objection in my continuing to act in a position which I could not perform. The purpose of a clerkship is to facilitate basic functions of local governance, and a basic function of a clerkship is the issuance of marriage licenses. Since I would have the ability to resign, I would have no legitimate reason to continue to serve in a position whose purpose I could not achieve.
Meaning, after exhausting all possible avenues by which I could both serve the rule of law and the rule of God, I would defer to the teachings of verse 4 and the emphasis of His Holiness, Pope Francis and resign my position.
instead there will be lawsuits and money paid out
for something and everything.
again…as I said…this is a minuscule problem that
in no way deserves the ink its getting.
let the couple go find someone to marry them and
move on….
end of story.
why must everything become a huge waste of
time/ you’re right…she needs to moveon and
the couple needs to move on and live happily ever
after.
the law is the law….change it if you will.
If it’s such a waste of time, why are you half the comments on here?
Reason; I OWN you.
You have nothing better to do than check every 15 minutes to see what I’ve said. No, Im not doing the same, the platform sends the comments to me, dickweed.
Now, go manage your global business empire in law, medicine, polling, Huff Po, auto, newsletters or whatever it is THIS week. I’m done replying, you can whistle in the dark and spit into the wind.
Thanks Harley. It’s good to know that I’m not the only one who believes that this is just like going into a store that’s out of kosher salami.
I think Mrs. Davis is “looking for her 15 minutes”.
Nice article Paul.
Harley, you continue to personify the “Dunning-Kruger” effect. Clever as a stone, salt of the earth and kcconfidential’s promissory note. We are all tired of meeting you.
Thank you, kind sir.
go back to digging ditches. Heard the trolley car is running late. Maybe
get a few extra hours in digging those ditches
you’re kcc’s forgotten but not gone old man. Please leave the premises.
and take you’re swastika with you!
Chuck, I’d like to apologize on behalf of KCC’s special needs child, Harley. I dont always agree with your views, points or positions. Much like you or anyone else don’t with mine. And, you know what? That’s fine. Its part of the exchange of ideas and communication. It promotes dialogue. Open expression of thought.
But where I take a stand is when someone as vile, accusatory and ignorant as Harley wants to step in and act condescending about good people on here. And, especially when he wants to cut down someones line of work.
Harley acts above everyone else, but from actions underway, we know otherwise. But lets say this, lets agree that his net worth is in the millions, why would anyone want to cut someone down for the work they do? All work is good and descent work. Anything legal that someone does to make a living is far better than the welfare frauds we have today.
I dont know if you dig ditches or not. I happen to know someone who does, to plow in fiber for AT&T. I will promise you this, I know what he makes and its more than Harley. And, why does it matter how someone makes a living? It doesn’t, other than to frauds like him who want to, one day, talk about all the charity work he does, and the next day, criticize someone for their line of work.
There’s a hard rain that’s going to fall his way and everyone is going to have a chuckle when it does. No pun intended….
At some point, I think we all have to take at least a little responsibility for Harley’s screeds.
I am going to now, over the next couple of minutes, re read Harley’s last comment, ONLY I am going to, in my head, add some Cow Bell. Maybe music, will soften the edges and bring us all into the light. Here goes…
Nope, they are still incessantly puerile, repetitive and redundant.
Cow Bell should have worked.
By the way, I also crawl through attics and spider webs dodging critters who are almost as mean as Harley.
🙂
It’s a living.
Oh wow… I was willing to over look ditch digger, but you’re an attic crawler too? I’m going to have to think that over.
The ass has made wrongful insinuations against me for years now. But now that he has reason to believe something is really on his tail, and it IS, he’s busy back tracking. Im not the box guy, thats someone who works at a big box store. Im not fat boy, that’s Rush. And even though he’s commented only to ME about being a wife beater and dead beat dad, now that wasn’t aimed at me either.
Its fine, he’s late to that parade and too late for him. I’d just like to see him leave or stick to the content instead of personal attacks. But if he wants it, he’s going to get it….
no…my assets are not in the millions….
but you’re close!
Harley reigns supreme.
He owns kcc.
Hearne move over. Harley is here to save your blog.
you worry about vw’s. I’ll keep the blog alive!!!!!!!!
hahaahahahahaaha!
PW, I don’t have a dog in the fight since this overzealous whack job lives in Kentucky and I reside in Missouri. I do, however, find it interesting that Huckabee is running to woman’s defense because he feels she is being persecuted for her religious beliefs. The irony of all this is that the all of the GOP candidates have been railing against Obama’s immigration policies because he refuses to enforce the LAW. Now it’s OK to not enforce a law that you don’t agree with for moral/religious reasons? Hmmmm.
Other than the hypocrisies of the woman that you pointed out, I assumed she placed her hand on the Bible when being sworn into office and promised to uphold the laws of her state/county. Now she is using that same Bible to NOT uphold the laws of her state/county? That’s awesome.
This is just one more example why twisting religion and using it as a weapon is turning people away from all organized religions. All faiths are filled with hypocrites and frauds. We “non-believers” just shake our heads at the gullibility of the masses.
Good article, Paul.
a.k.a., it goes back to my original premise; I’m OK with my sin, I can justify that. But your sin? You’re going to HELL!
The Bible says we have all fallen short of the glory of God. We just tend to project that on others who we feel have fallen shorter!
As the commenter said about, if we lived in the image of the current Pope and focused on our own struggles, we’d all be better off!
Thanks for your always great comments.
Why don’t states have to enforce the federal law against pot?
Why don’t cities and states have to enforce illegal immigration laws where they have created sanctuary cities for protect criminals?
Justice appears very blind.
No one has lost their life because of this woman however many have lost their lives and livelihood because of illegal drugs and illegal aliens.
Jack, please don’t tell me you’re actually looking for justice in the justice system? That’s a lost cause. You’d be better served trying to teach creative writing, spelling and grammar to the H-muenster.
I wonder if she would be acting like this if her position were a hired one, instead of an elected one.
Maybe she’s counting on a recall being more difficult to achieve than a wholesale firing?
Without doing any homework, I’m guessing she’d have to be impeached by a panel of pols. That HAS to have some bearing on her acting all high and mighty. I think she’d think twice if it were a job she had to hired for.
Ah well, at least she had her 15 minutes.
Good to see you moved enough about current events to post up some articles. Yours are about the only ones I bother reading anymore, even though it involves a crap load of harleybabble to skip over!
IF SHE GET FIRED SHE SUES…
SHE WON’T QUIT….SHE CAN PROBABLY RETIRE ON THIS WHOLE EPISODE…
MAYBE WRITE A BOOK…APPEAR ON GLAZE’S PODCASTS AND OPRAH.
AND I’m SURE megan will have her on here show…..
In the 1990s A US Appeals Court said that no elected or appointed official has a right to overrule a vote of the people. In the second hearing of Beam versus Georgia, the courts struck down the precedents of Chevron, holding that unconstitutional laws are unconstituional from their dates of passage, and the last sentence of the first Amendment tries, in vain, to bring responsibility to government. Unfortunately, it fails, and “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” has been ignored. The state of Kentucky, as did the states of Missouri and Kansas, voted to not recognize gay marriage, and here we are. Is it right or wrong? As far as religion goes, that same amendment also stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.” Religion, for some, defines marriage, so we would be unlikely to see a conservative church offering the marriage ceremony to gays, multi-party marriage, or inter specie marriage for those so inclined to marry their pets. However it is also a legal term, and the best laid plans, pardon the pun, of the pro- gay marriage clan never invisioned a way to avoid estate and inheritance taxes, but I have to thank them for that. Now, Malcolm Forbes, with the permission of the parents, will be able to marry his great grandson in Arkansas, passing his fortune on to following generations without benefit of a Federal Estate tax. Sorry, but it’s the law? The original problem was rights, not religion, but due to the double meaning in Websters, religion and rights, we have now bestowed, upon our well off, a way of allowing what to every Democrat thinks must be the rich man’s fair share. We noticed it, when Daddy Warbucks, married the 20 year old and she made use of the unlimited deduction of Daddy Warbucks death bed, the unlimited marital deduction. So, it really doesn’t matter whether the County Clerk in question was married 3, 4, or a dozen times, especially since the Catholic Church this morning suddenly made anullment easier, that beautiful act of declaring estisting children bastards. So be it. In some states, recognizing Common Law marriage, the license was already a formality. All it took was the reference to marriage and the spouse, publicly, in the same sentence. So, here internment appears to be much ado about nothing. If the Federal Judge jailed her in order to make her change her mind, it was idiocy. She probably has better accomodation in jail. Generally, she was elected by her constituents, with a position shared by most of her constituents, who voted to ban gay marriage in the state of Kentucky, so she really doesn’t matter. The real problem, and it was the same with slavery, was that you can change the law, as well as the perception of the law, but you cannot change the minds of people who do not and will not accept change. I’m just glad I can pass my fortune on to a young thing, and Harley will have no access to it via Estate and Gift Taxes, SHOULD I LIVE THAT LONG.
Great comment. Thanks.
Good piece Paul. I must be naive….Since when does a ruling by the SCOTUS become law. Regardless of the issue, when did legislating laws from the Supreme Court bench become acceptable? I shake my head. This is not the way our government is supposed to work.
Jeff,
Great comment. “Regardless of the issue…” That is the key. It is really a relevant point given the premise of Mr. Wilson’s post. That “I’m OK with my sin, I can justify that. But your sin? You’re going to HELL!”
The SCOTUS has the power to tell a President that his actions violate the Constitution. The SCOTUS has the power to tell Congress that a law it has passed violates the Constitution. The SCOTUS has the power to tell a state that its law violates the Constitution. This is how the ruling of SCOTUS becomes law and it is how the government is supposed to work. We may not agree with a SCOTUS ruling but ……….
We agree. Thanks, as usual, StompMan.
This was a good piece, Paul. Balanced and fair. My comments on SCOTUS above were directed at Jeff’s questions.
jeff…it becomes law if the sc rules in your favor on a case.
example: citizens united…no one likes it…its going to bring down
our government…yet its law…..and repubs love it and love the fact it
is law…dems hate it.
ACA: sc rules on it…it becomes a law…dems love it….repubs hate it…
it just depends on what an individual thinks about the law…
its acceptable…when the law is one you favor.
Thanks, Jeff.