Kentucky Clerk is No More Lawless than Supreme Court

Kentucky Clerk is No More Lawless than Supreme Court September 3, 2015

As a former Kentuckian, I’ve been watching this case with great interest. One woman — in Eastern Kentucky — has drawn a line in the sand and said, “no more.”

The genius of the American idea, in part, was that a nation could be ruled by laws – not men.  That way, we can better protect our freedoms and guard against tyranny.

Is this Kentucky woman hurting or supporting our nation by refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples?

THREE REASONS WHY YOU SHOULDN’T CALL KIM DAVIS A HYPOCRITE

My husband, Constitutional attorney David French, offers a more accurate reading of the situation: the Courts and the Obama administration doing whatever they like, and invoking the “rule of law” whenever it is convenient. The Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, is lawless, but not as lawless as the Supreme Court. He writes at National Review Online:

As of this writing, the lead stories at both the Washington Post and New York Times are the same — in tiny Rowan County, Kentucky, Kim Davis, the elected county clerk, is defying the Supreme Court of the United States. Citing “God’s authority,” she is refusing to issue any marriage licenses out of her office, referring couples to neighboring counties. Her reason is simple: Ever since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, she’ll be required to issue licenses to same-sex couples, and signing her name on the marriage certificate would be a “searing act of validation” that would “forever echo in her conscience.”

Make no mistake, this is a revolutionary act. She has been rebuffed by the courts at every turn. She has exhausted her legal options. And the Supreme Court unmistakably has jurisdiction over her case. Her actions are now lawless, and she’s facing a motion for contempt of court, a potential criminal case for official misconduct, impeachment, and — of course — possible rejection at the ballot box. Revolution has its consequences, and Davis will endure those consequences soon enough.

But Davis isn’t the only revolutionary here. In fact, she didn’t fire the first revolutionary shot. That distinction belongs to a Supreme Court that concocted out of whole cloth a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, using legal “reasoning” that reads more like a religious tract than a court opinion. Justice Kennedy took the moral sensibilities of five justices and rendered those moral sensibilities the law of the land. 

It’s not the first time the Supreme Court has stepped into the most consequential of legal questions, removed them from the Democratic process, and did so by essentially making it all up. The Court’s horrific Dred Scott opinion helped spark the Civil War. Roe v. Wade legalized mass murder. And the instant after each judicial coup, its defenders solemnly invoke the “rule of law” to force the masses to comply. Yet the rule of law requires both lawful enactment and lawful enforcement.

He goes on to say:

… I have deep respect for the rule of law, for our Constitution, and for our federalist democratic traditions. And that’s exactly why I have no respect for Roe, for Obergefell, or for any assertion that enforcing those revolutionary acts represents American constitutional government in action. Kim Davis committed a lawless act. But so did Justice Kennedy. His superior power and influence does not change that salient fact. The American people are indeed “ruled,” but increasingly it is by men, not law.

Read the rest of the article here!

Read more on the Patheos Faith and Family Channel, follow Nancy on FacebookTwitter, and Instagram!

"and what makes this even better is that the two girls are sisters http://www.huffingtonpost.c..."

Black activists cried "racism" over this ..."
"It's heart wrenching to hear about this. Our country is getting more vile and depraved ..."

Target proudly welcomes men to use ..."
"a wolf dressed as a sheep is still a wolf - if u have a ..."

Target proudly welcomes men to use ..."
"I am picturing a little turd in pajamas sipping coffee."

Los Angeles Craigslist ad somehow captures ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Frank

    Very well said!

  • lady_black

    I hope she finds her jail cell very accommodating.

  • DanH

    I always have pity for those that use their religion as a reason to treat others as less than equal.The Bible was used to say blacks were less than whites and could be used as slaves,The Bible was used to say women were less than men and could be beaten treated as property and denied the right to vote and LGBT are less than straight people and can be denied basic rights.When will Christians finally just celebrate God’s love and quit looking for someone to look down on as less than equal.

  • alwayspuzzled

    Davis is just a tool for the Liberty Counsel and other leaders of the godly tribe. Now she is in jail and a martyr. Her story is a great fundraising opportunity for the leaders of the godly tribe. The longer she stays in jail, the bigger their bank accounts get.

  • TheOneTruth_

    It’s all a lie… Why is it that the only sin they seem to object to is being gay. They are perfectly fine with serving all other kinds of sin. Liars using their religion to mask their bigotry. I’d only believe their convictions if they applied it to all sin and not just the one they pick and choose

  • valleystina

    She doesn’t have to sign anything for; murderer’s, liars, thieves, extortionists, etc…

  • valleystina

    That’s some pretty creative thinking.

  • valleystina

    The saddest thing about this story is, there aren’t more like it. At least I’ve not heard of any, all though I have heard of entire “churches” caving in to the pressure.

  • LT

    Where did you get that idea? They object to all kinds of sins. You really should get out of your narrowminded ways and see the world a bit.

    Refusing gay marriage isn’t bigotry.

  • Tracy Caraker

    She’s asked to sign a CIVIL document. Marriage in this country is a binding civil contract. Not a religious one. I hope she rots in jail.

  • nilsmontan

    I am sure your husband is a very sweet guy Nancy, but unfortunately his law is a little fuzzy. The clerk in this case is a conscious objector to the law as it was set down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, she has to face the consequences of her actions, just as draft dodgers had to when they refused to go to the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, hundreds of county clerks al over the country are issuing same sex marriage licensees to gay couples even though their “religion” (as they interpret it) is against such unions.

  • nilsmontan

    I’m not sure what you mean by churches “caving into pressure.” No church, as far as I know, is being forced to host a same sex ceremony.

  • nilsmontan

    But she also refused to issue a license to a couple who ate shellfish.

  • Michael Reid

    “Equal access to the law” is a constitutional right fabricated out of whole cloth by the justices? Silly me, here I thought our Constitution says that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law. Guess that just applies to those citizens that conservatives don’t find “icky”.

  • AKFletch

    So you (and your extraordinarily astute husband) seem to think that the SCOTUS should be held to a higher standard of consistency re: the US constitution than a thrice divorced and obviously adulterous clerk re: ‘God’s’ law?

  • DanH

    I know right neither is refusing adulterers marriage licenses or people that eat pork,wear mixed fabric, work on the Sabbath and bankers usury you know that is immoral to.

  • He must’ve been taught incorrectly at Harvard Law. I’ll let him know.

  • DanH

    “Do unto others” “render unto Caesar” now where have I heard those before?

  • DanH

    Some people just don’t see how the last line of section I of the 14th amendment
    nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    can possibly apply to LGBT

  • jaia60

    Geez, get over it. Laws are made by men (and women).
    And this law probably doesn’t affect you in the least.

  • Paul

    I think she’s probably referring to Mainline Protestant denominations, such as Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, allowing same-sex ceremonies to be blessed in their church.

    While I agree with the Mainlines on this one, I’m guessing that’s what she’s getting at.

  • DanH

    Because what does accepting people loving people have to do with God or the church.I mean some of these churches act like it is up to God to judge people.

  • Paul

    Oh, Dan, I agree completely with what the Mainlines are doing. I’m just assuming that’s what she meant.

  • Zinc

    No matter how educated someone is, they can still be biased, and can still make mistakes/be wrong. I don’t care if his law degree was tinted gold, and handed to him by the gods, he’s still fallible.

  • DanH

    I know it was sarcasm not directed at you although I used your reply to post it.

    I am a widower my wife died three years ago she was the love of my life and I called her my better three quarters because better half didn’t begin to cover what she meant to me.Everyday I read something and the first thing I think of is that I have to tell her about it,I still turn expecting to see her.

    Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

    I would be the biggest hypocrite in the world if I did anything to actively keep someone from knowing that kind of love and commitment.

  • mimi

    BTW, Justice Kennedy graduated Harvard Law too. Harvard Law doesn’t bestow infallibility upon its graduates as is evidenced in your husband’s above opinion piece that evidenced scant legal reasoning opting instead for histrionics.

  • When he said she had no legal ground to not sign the license, is that what you object to?

  • LT

    What does that mean?

  • DanH

    What you don’t read the Bible?Those that claim homosexual behavior is an abomination(Old Testament) should follow through and discriminate against others that commit abominations according to the Old Testament.

    If I were a bigot I could use the Bible and Biblical teachings to discriminate against people that wear mixed fabric,work on the Sabbath,charge interest on loans(usury)eat shellfish,pork or any of the other unclean things listed in the Old Testament.People that are divorced,people that are fornicators there are pages of lists of things that if people do I could discriminate against them but I am not a bigot and I would not pick and choose if I was.

  • Steve Wetzel

    There is NO LAW! The Supreme Court cannot create law – only the lawmakers can. The Congress has passed no law in regards to same sex marriage, therefore there is no law being broken. If anything she is upholding Kentucky law which states marriage is between one man and one woman.

  • dominic

    ‘…And spare me any new-found leftist reverence for our constitutional structure.’

    One can imagine, had the SCOTUS made its determination against marriage equality, and had the LGBT community then vociferously condemned its decision as an act of partisan and discriminatory ‘judicial fiat’ – likely every bit as bad as ‘Dred Scott v Sandford’ in terms of the degree to which such a decision would have sought permanently to deny whole segments of American society equality of access to justice, also the extent to which lasting damage would have been done to the court’s authority, and moreover the questionable legality of this attack upon the constitutional right of free-born LGBT American citizens to live lives in accordance with their conscience, enjoining, let us not forget, its commensurate imperative towards acts of civil disobedience – the right’s principle argument in victory would doubtless have been spearheaded by a loudly proclaimed reaffirmation of their abiding and wholly warranted ‘…reverence for our constitutional structure.’

  • Frito Pendejo

    Your argument is that because current federal law doesn’t address same-sex marriage states are free to prohibit it. Which is what about half the states have done for decades.

    The Supreme Court ruled that such state laws violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Changing that would require either a constitutional amendment or a reversal by a future Court. The end.

  • yellowdoggie

    Well MY husband thinks your husband is wrong. So there.

  • Jesus Bones

    Another Conservative Christian propagandist/ revisionist, belly-aching about the Courts when they don’t get there way! What’s new about that? Evangecal malcontents it’s Rush-loony- ism! The Rush-loonies, and Christian nationalist are reconstructionists, reconstructing a mythological theocratic state that never existed in the United States of America ever! Rush-loony-ism is a morally bankrupt theology as is most fundamentalism. A medieval dogmatism with a proclivity, to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, and without evidence, just opinion is all it is! Religious supremacy is what these Christian malcontents think they are entitled to and the agenda of the Christian right is to replace the Constitution with biblical law.

  • William Robert Guerra

    you win the stupidest comment of the day award, altho it’s still early. when the supreme court ruled on homo-marriage, they admitted that they did so based NOT on law, but on how the “felt” – typical progressive leftist garbage basing everything on “feelings”. they went OUTSIDE the law, so technically homo-marriage is still NOT legal as their decision went outside of their authority under the Constitution…and yeah yeah, i know, you claim you are the tolerant ones, so long as everyone believes what you do….again, typical tolerance of the intolerant.

  • William Robert Guerra

    let’s open your closet and see how many skeletons fall out. who cares what her life was BEFORE she converted.
    and scotus may not necessarily be held to a “higher” standard but they have no right to go OUTSIDE the limits of their authority which is what they did.

  • William Robert Guerra

    and SO is scotus, who went OUTSIDE the authority provided to them. they have NO right to MAKE law, which is what they did based on their liberal “feelings” and they even admitted that their decision was NOT based on law. idiots breeding idiots

  • William Robert Guerra

    ah, here we go, showing that you have no understanding of the Bible…..you should really study it before making these kinds of false statements about it.

  • William Robert Guerra

    well, let’s see….burglars do not hold “burglar pride parades” and demand that we accept their behavior as acceptable, etc., etc., etc. the point is that we DO hate all sin, and act accordingly but no one is trying to celebrate those sins and turn them in to normal behavior.

  • LT

    But you’re a bigot without using the Bible. So what now? You want to exclude people from public life because you disagree with them. You want to foster hate towards those who believe differently than you do. That’s wrong on your part.

    The truth is that those who use the Old Testament in that way are wrong. You are simply showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

  • DanH

    No I want to exclude people from public life that can’t or won’t do their job.If they are working for the government they are to fulfill their job requirements NOT be IMAM that gets to decide based on their religious beliefs or do you think Christians should be discriminated against by other religions?There is a test case for you a Jewish government employee refuses to give restaurant licenses to any restaurant that serves anything that is not Kosher.That would go over real well with the hypocrites in the south sorry no ribs,bacon or ham for you.What about a Muslim working at the DMV “I’m sorry I’m sure your a nice Christian lady but my religious beliefs mean I don’t have to give you a drivers license”.What about a Hindu that refuses to issue gun permits and hunting licenses?there would be total chaos if the government and their employees were not neutral on religion or do you think only Christians should have that religious freedom?

  • DanH

    Well I have studied the Bible have you?Does the Bible not say that eating pork is an abomination?Does it not forbid working on the Sabbath?or any of the other things I have listed?If you want to pick and choose fine just remember others can pick and choose too.

  • Zinc

    No, the ones that dissented claimed that the majorities opinion was not based in law. Because, shockingly, the losing side might try and justify their loss by painting the winning side as wrong/biased. It’s a common tactic used by both sides.

    The Scotus isn’t a unified whole that acts as a singular entity. So when one of them says something, it doesn’t mean the entire bench thinks it. Scailia’s and Robert’s dissents, that claimed it wasn’t based on the Constitution, don’t hold sway over the other justices. The majority opinion rested on the 14th amendment, and was back by the notion of constitutional supremacy. So, by their metric, it fell under the purview of the Constitution. Just look to Kennedy’s majority opinion.

    “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed….
    …Especially against a long history of disapproval of their
    relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the
    Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.”

  • DanH

    There are those that refuse to believe that LGBT are simply born that way because to do so would mean…GASP God made them different and their minds refuse to believe it and they have their religious beliefs to back them.Just as ISIS has their religion to back them that Christians and LGBT and anyone that doesn’t follow Islam is evil and should be killed.

  • JDouglas

    Speaking of stupidity… the SC may not always be right but it is final. Any “flaws” you find in the basis for their legal decision does not invalidate their decisions. Mr. French seems to believe that “laws” are not the creation of the legislature and the courts but divinely ordained given his concluding sentence. It seems then that Mr. French is under this belief that the US is or should be a theocracy, the Constitution be damned. Mr. French seems to have more in common with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban who also believe in theocracy.

  • JDouglas

    Ever read Marbury v. Madison? It’s Poli Sci 101 stuff. The Supreme Court HAS the jurisdiction. Period.

  • Tet Lancaster

    Nancy’s sole purpose as a blogger is to shamelessly promote her husband’s blog posts. Can this guy not become a successful blogger on his own? Do either one of these people have any dignity?!

  • LT

    Nice try, but clearly lacking any kind of even semi-serious thought.

    If that Muslim or Jew was the only place to get the license, then you might have a case. That’s what the courts call the least restrictive means. (Surely if you have an opinion on this, you already know that.) In the DMV or elsewhere, that person is free to not to do it, and allow someone else to do it. And that’s exactly what could have been done here. There are over a hundred counties in Kentucky where marriage licenses could have been obtained without violating this clerk’s conscience. That is the least restrictive means. Or Kentucky could simply remove the clerk’s name from the license. Of Kentucky could refuse to give licenses at all and let people do what they want. There are all kinds of less restrictive means.

    I think everyone should have religious freedom, and I agree with the Constitution that there should be no religious test for office.

    The chaos here is that tyrannical and contradictory courts who override the laws of the land in favor of a social outcome. It was wrong. And then to jail this lady? That’s judicial abuse, plain and simple.

  • DanH

    “The chaos here is that tyrannical and contradictory courts who override
    the laws of the land in favor of a social outcome.”

    Well at least we know your still against interracial marriage.

    “And then to jail this lady? That’s judicial abuse, plain and simple.’

    So contempt of court is legal interesting do go on about your legal theories.

    Since you fail to even read or understand the 14th amendment.I don’t think anyone should take legal advice from you.

  • David

    Bloggers aside, and preferences aside on gay marriage or not, numbers don’t lie. This nation was founded on the idea, or somewhat belief that the majority rules. Elections are determined on the “majority vote”. If 85% of the 300+ million people associate with Christianity, and less than 5% associate themselves with being gay in one form or another how is it that the minority feels they have to be appeased, and why is it that SCOTUS “felt” they should give in to that minority. Why didn’t you all, the homos, who want to be together and felt you were discriminated because you couldn’t enter into “legal binding agreements” just ask for contractual arrangements? It’s because you aren’t happy with getting what you want, you aren’t happy until you can do an “in your face” to all those that disagree with you and your lifestyle. As for the religious part of it, for you a$$holes who call it myth, the Constitution guarantees freedom of having religion forced on us, and freedom to exercise religion freely. The SCOTUS after making up their law, their words, said this wouldn’t be used to penalize anybody for exercising their religious beliefs. Apparently they lie like their fearless leader in the White House. As mamma used to say, with all you “unhappy, angry, looking for something to be offended by” liberals the squeaky wheel gets the grease. One other thing, last time I looked up gay it meant lighthearted and carefree… you are as unhappy and angry as anybody I’ve ever seen constantly.

  • DanH

    You do not get to vote away Constitutional rights.There are more women in the United States than men can they vote to take away men’s right to vote?Our nations Constitution was set up from the beginning to protect the minority from oppression by the majority that is why there are equal protections built in.This nation is not a theocracy there are thousands of different religions in America.There are hundreds if not thousands of different variations of Christianity alone.

  • LT

    You either can’t read or are intentionally dishonest. I have never been against interracial marriage.

    To jail this lady in this circumstance is judicial abuse. There were other remedies available, as seen by the fact that there are actual other remedies being used.

    I understand the fourteenth amendment, and if you did, you would understand that it has nothing to do with this. Those arguments have already been made beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In the end, you are a bigot and hateful.

  • Jesus Bones

    LOL!! You sound miserable stop bing a crybaby!

  • DanH

    Interracial marriage became legal in all of America only because the Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional thus rendering the laws in many states that prohibited it void because they were unconstitutional.Just as they have for same sex marriage both decisions were based on the 14th amendment.The same nonsense from people fighting interracial marriage is being spewed out by those fighting same sex marriage.

    Contempt of court is contempt of court.

  • Sunria64

    The mainlines aren’t “caving to pressure,” though. They are doing it because they want to. it is a delusional concept that all Christians believe the same on this issue, that they are just going against their beliefs and conscience to appease the government.

  • ggacre99

    So the ‘remedy’ is to allow this woman to not only refuse to issue marriage licenses to anyone but to also forbid her staff
    from doing their jobs. Bottom line is that she is totally wrong, both legally and morally.

  • LT

    Interracial marriage and same sex marriage are two entirely different things. People who don’t know that have never given it thought. So your analogy is bad. They have nothing to do with each other.

    And some courts are contemptuous.

  • LT

    No, there are other remedies. And legally and morally, she is correct. She cannot legally be compelled to violate her religious convictions except in the absence of other remedies. There are other less restrictive remedies that could easily be used.

  • DanH

    “Interracial marriage and same sex marriage are two entirely different things.”

    Some people used their religion as a reason to pass laws making interracial marriage against the law.
    The supreme court ruled those laws unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment.

    Some people used their religion as a reason to pass laws making same sex marriage against the law.
    The supreme court ruled those laws unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment.

    Entirely different sure they are.Only if you refuse to believe that LGBT are born that way.
    This is what I have heard so far from various people against same sex marriage.
    1.It is unnatural.Except it is found in nature and homosexual behavior is observed in a percentage of animals.
    2.It is not normal.Who decides what is normal for someone else? My eyes are blue yours are brown your abnormal.
    3.God is against it.Your God in your religion but not everyone believes in your God or follows your religion.We have the freedom in America to believe in whatever God we wish or follow whatever religion we wish or follow none at all.You do not have to right to make others conform to your religious view or deny them rights based on your religious views.

  • ggacre99

    She is neither legally nor morally correct. The only reasonable remedy is for her to do her job or move on so a real Christian can do it.

  • Liberal Kuhn

    Don’t read things you don’t like.

  • Liberal Kuhn

    Agree – just like those 5 slobs on the SCOTUS.

  • Liberal Kuhn

    A liberal showing off her compassion’n’tolerance. You go, girl! You just ooze love and humanity!

  • Liberal Kuhn

    The mainlines are post-Christian. They’ve been shrinking for decades. The gay issue will finish them off. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  • Liberal Kuhn

    The old Leviticus smear.
    Every homosexual thinks she’s a Bible scholar.

  • GeoBarbara

    How do you know what you don’t like (the contents of a blog or a comment) unless you read it? Simple question to a stupid comment. Is the “liberal” part of your ID sarcastic?

  • Diaris

    Aren’t you just a sweetie pie?

  • shy guy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[X 1] [X 2] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchberg_v._Feenstra

    Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Louisiana Head and Master law, which gave sole control of marital property to the husband, unconstitutional.[1][2]

  • lady_black

    Yes. I just don’t suffer fools gladly.

  • Diaris

    If you look at their rates of
    – alcoholism
    – drug abuse
    – STDs
    – domestic abuse
    – suicide
    definitely “gay” is the last word that comes to mind.

  • Diaris

    I’m so glad to hear that.
    In that case, you might find this link useful:

    http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods

  • lady_black

    That sounds more up your alley than mine. Thanks so much for posting your suicide porn. Aren’t we the lucky ones? I would have never found such a page myself. I love life. Nope. This one is all yours. bitch.

  • LT

    It is morally correct to refuse same sex marriage since it is disobedience to God and the created order. It is legally correct since there is a right to religious freedom in our country. How can you not know these things? Are you really that uninformed?

  • ggacre99

    Forcing obedience to her God is not within her purview. There are no morals involved in issuing paperwork, that’s just an extension of idiotic ideas. And, yes, Davis has religious freedom, but not the right to force me to comply with her religion. I know that is a difficult concept, but that is what religious freedom is about.

  • lady_black

    The 14th amendment is pretty clear. You can’t have sanctioned marriage and deny it based on feels.

  • lady_black

    Burglary is a crime, and harms others.

  • lady_black

    Oh look everyone. Diaris decided to share her suicide porn with all of us. Aren’t we lucky? Isn’t he/she/it special?

  • LT

    Are you familiar with this story at all? She wasn’t forcing obedience to her God. The couples involved were welcome to get marriage licenses at over 100 places in the state of Kentucky. She wasn’t trying to stop them from doing that. She offered a number of options that could have easily resolved this issue.

    And yes, there are morals involved in paperwork. If you think there’s no, try filing a fraudulent tax return, or a legal filing with perjury in it. You are the one with idiotic ideas if you don’t know that.

  • ken

    Is that what passes for “wit” in a bar full of drunk gays?

  • ggacre99

    ‘She wasn’t trying to stop them…’ Of course not, that’s why she refused to issue the license. You’re right, someone is not familiar with this story.

  • LT

    Where’s the evidence that she was trying to stop them from going to one of over one hundred other clerk’s offices in Kentucky? Or that she was trying to stop them from going to one of many other states in the US?

    Had they wanted a license, they could have done what many other people did–go and get one at one of the many many places where they were available. Instead, they chose to try to force this woman to violate her conscience.

    Please read a few stories on this. They are easy to come by on the internet and they will help you not make silly uninformed statements like you just did.

  • ggacre99

    I agree. If you want to live in a location that considers you to be a citizen with the same rights as everyone else, you will probably need to move OR maybe, just maybe, the State and county officials here will resolve the issue by recognizing those rights and acting accordingly.

  • LT

    Do you have any evidence of that either? You didn’t provide any for the first statement you made, adn now you make another unsupported statement. Perhaps you didn’t know this, but the right of marriage existed before this.

    Your bigotry is the problem in this country. Your hateful attitude and treatment of those who have a different view of things than yours is divisive. Your rhetoric is unacceptable in a civil society.

  • Jon Hendry

    She does have to sign for divorced people who want to remarry.

    That doesn’t seem to trouble her.

  • Jon Hendry

    “The couples involved were welcome to get marriage licenses at over 100 places in the state of Kentucky.”

    100 separate-but-equal places? I don’t think that argument is going to fly.

  • Jon Hendry

    “Where’s the evidence that she was trying to stop them from going to one of over one hundred other clerk’s offices in Kentucky? ”

    Why should they go to another county when they pay her salary as taxpayers?

  • Jon Hendry

    Divorce and remarriage = adultery.

    Is she stopping people from doing that? Apparently not. So that’s one sin that she’s okay with.

    Would it be okay if a Catholic clerk refused to issue marriage certificates to divorced people, only doing it if they have an annulment issued by the Catholic church?

  • Jon Hendry

    County clerks shouldn’t issue marriage certificates to divorced people. They should only issue marriage certificates to people who have been previously married if the people have an annulment from the Catholic Church.

    How does that sound?

  • Jon Hendry

    “her life was BEFORE she converted.”

    She was Baptist. What makes you so sure she’s any better at being Apostolic Christian than she was at being a Baptist?

  • Jon Hendry

    There are more gay Americans than there are Jews.

    What exactly would you like to do to the Jews? Take aware their freedom of religion? Their freedom of speech? Their right to vote? Their right to marry? Their right to adopt?

  • LT

    No, not at all. You apparently have no idea what is going on with this story. Please read up on it before commenting again. Google is your friend here.

    No one is talking about separate but equal. If you were even remotely familiar with this case, you would know that.

  • LT

    That wasn’t the question. You are coming in late here and are obviously unfamiliar with the case at hand as evidenced by your other comment. That’s not a tribute to you. It’s a shame to you.

    There were easy solutions to this problem, and the governor of Kentucky and the legislature of Kentucky refused to take any of them. Rather than standing up for a minority, the Democratic governor encouraged and allowed judicial abuse of a minority. The court system overstepped its bounds. Davis was following the law in Kentucky and following the Constitution of the United States. She was well within her rights to do this.

    Your bigoted, hateful attitude towards others that you disagree with is shameful.

  • ggacre99

    It can hurt when your discriminatory acts lose their legal sanction. But you are corret, the ‘right’ of marriage existed before this. Just look at the same sex marriages existing throughout history. Don’t ask me to look up the obvious for you. Do your own research.
    .

  • Jon Hendry

    “This school is for whites, this school is for blacks, but really, they’re just as good as each other.”
    “This county clerk office is for straight people only, this other county clerk office is for straight people and gay people. They’re just as good as each other, what’s the problem?”

    Separate but equal.

  • Jon Hendry

    So the answer is that she’s demanding special treatment. Ironic, because one of the bad arguments used by people against gay rights and gay marriage is that gay people don’t want equal rights, they want “special rights”.

    Turns out it’s unreasonable religious fanatics with weird non-Biblical beliefs that want to be granted special privileges.

  • LT

    Same sex marriages haven’t existed throughout history. You know that if you have done any research. That was the point that SCOTUS made forcefully and without dispute in its writing on this. The right of marriage existed for all people. They simply had to marry.

  • LT

    No, you are just lying. There were no marriage licenses being issue for anyone. Again, please read the news. You are making a total fool of yourself here.

  • LT

    She’s not demanding special treatment at all. All citizens of this country have rights. They don’t have to give them up. You are being bigot.

    Gay people always have had the right to marry. They simply had to marry.

    Your hatefulness and bigotry has no place in a civil society. Please be silent.

  • ggacre99

    Actually, records contradict that. There is really no excuse for ignorance in this day and age. But, that aside, while you draw breath there is hope, so I forgive you your bigotry and hatred and hope you may someday become an enlightened member of the human race.

  • LT

    You are simply wrong. Records don’t contradict that. Homosexual relationships have widely existed throughout history. But they were not called marriage. You know that of course. But you have to pretend otherwise to try to buttress your position.

    And there is no bigotry and hatred on my part. You know that. You know that I have not said one hateful word or said one bigoted thing. That is all you. You have disgust for a religious person, and that’s wrong for you to do. You should be the one fighting for her rights not denying them. You talk big about rights but when it comes time to defend them you suddenly change your mind.

  • Lookingup73

    What a beautiful comment. Thank you for passing something so positive!