Three Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Call Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis a Hypocrite

Three Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Call Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis a Hypocrite September 3, 2015

Whenever a conservative takes a stand, the culture accuses that person of being hypocrite.  This is the case with Kim Davis, the now-imprisoned county clerk from Eastern Kentucky who refused to sign same sex marriage licenses (for couples who could get those licenses signed down the road).  The media relished the fact that she’s been divorced three times and had children without the benefit of marriage.  When she became a Christian more recently, she decided to take God’s law more seriously.

Here are a few things to consider regarding the ever-constant hypocrisy accusation:

1. It only applies to sex:

Imagine this scenario. A man drinks to excess every day and smokes crystal meth.  Then, he has an epiphany and changes, turning from his old life and starting anew.  Instead of drinking and smoking, he tries exercise and eating more healthfully.  In his free time, he warns others to stay away from drugs and drink.

Does the culture collectively yell “hypocrite!” No.  Most appreciate that he had the ability to turn his life around and praise him.

When the sin deals with sex, everything changes.  It doesn’t make sense.

2.  It reveals that the farce of “slut shaming.” 

We live in a culture which preaches against “slut-shaming” and says everything goes sexually.  You can be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, or even pansexual without raising an eyebrow.  If you do raise an eyebrow, you are a bigot.  But not in Kim’s case.

“Well, who is she to talk,” people say on Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media about the Kentucky clerk.  “You heard that she had affairs, didn’t you?”

Suddenly, our culture is a bunch of Puritans – aghast at the woman’s sexual standards.

3.  It buys into wrong definition of hypocrisy. It isn’t hypocritical to fail to live up to your own moral standards.  If you have ever lied in your life, don’t you still have the moral freedom and even responsibility to teach your children that lying is wrong?

The Gospel Coalition has a good definition of hypocrisy that might shed light on the subject: “The hypocrite is not the Christian who struggles against sin, fights against temptation, and keeps doing what is right even on his worst feeling days. That’s a hero. The hypocrite is the Christian who uses the veneer of public virtue to cover the rot of private vice. He’s the man living a double life, the woman fooling her friends because she has church clothes, the student who proudly answers the questions in Sunday school and just as proudly romps through immorality the rest of the week. The sin of hypocrisy is not that we are more messed up than we seem. That’s true for all of us.”

So here we are, shocked – shocked, I tell ya! – that Kim Davis hasn’t lived up to God’s standards.  Some lament, “I’d be fine if the only people who advocated for traditional marriage weren’t hypocrites.”

Well, here’s a newsflash.  There’s only been one person on this earth who lived up to the standards of holiness… and the world hated him too.

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

 


Browse Our Archives

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

    Well then, is it okay if I (like several conservatives running for president and sitting on the Supreme Court) simply call her a woman who’s not doing her job, and justifying her lack of performance by reference to religion?

  • river rat

    She is also a registered dumbacrat !

  • disqus_p5U5lrkfew

    1) No. This is stupid. The man in the example is still a hypocrite. He is a well-meaning, recovering addict who is trying to prevent others from making the mistakes he did. This does not change that he is preaching something he himself did not follow. Being a hypocrite does not immediately disqualify you from all human dignity or redemption.

    2) This is flat-out farcical. I have never seen a single soul even suggest that her position is ridiculous because she is a woman. It’s because she’s broken every bloody rule on marriage in the Bible. She adulterated, divorced multiple times, had children outside of wedlock, et cetera. If a man did the same things, he’d be just as guilty. The only way to bring her gender into it at all is if we try to enforce the Biblical law that if a woman should try to marry and she is not a virgin, she should be stoned to death. I don’t think anyone really enforces that one any more, though.

    3) You’re on the verge of just making stuff up now. Words have meanings. You can’t just change them to mean whatever you want to support whatever point you’re trying to make here.

    In addition to all this, you’ve got little understanding of the law; people cannot “just go down the road” to get a marriage licence elsewhere. You’ve got to register with the county you reside in. Unless you’re personally offering to pay for anyone who wants to move out of Rowan county – retroactively, as there is no longer any need to without a bigot forestalling them from practising the rights of marriage as defined by the federal government.

    Lastly, the last person who lived up to the standards of holiness? The world didn’t hate him. He was pretty popular, in fact. It was a narrow subset of people – a tiny, tiny minority – that was against Him. I begin to wonder if you’ve ever even read the Bible, because you seem to be completely unable to say anything which is even remotely supported by the book in question.

    How you got to be a “three time New York Times Best Selling Author” – great humility there, that that’s all you’ve got to say of yourself, BTW – is beyond me. But God knows it wasn’t your writing talent. This article struggles to contain more than two sentences with any facts at all in them. You are an embarrassment to journalism and writing both.

  • RustbeltRick

    Yet it’s only Republicans (mostly running for president or hosting talk radio shows or who churn out nonsense blog posts) who support her actions. Go figure.

  • Archibald Lazer

    HAHA this isn’t journalism its not even readable. Like what are you even saying?

  • spokalou

    Ms. Davis’ first three marriages all took place in Baptist churches and were all officiated by Baptist ministers: Rev. Owen Cox, Rev. H.G. Pratt, Rev. Gary Clark. If she wasn’t a Christian then, what was she? Did she not violate the bible teaching about divorce? Doesn’t that make her an adulter?
    “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10

    Smells like hypocrisy to me.

  • Joshua Wilhour

    The bible law I bring to mind is: Let you who is without sin cast the first stone. A hypocrite is not the name for one that has changed from sin, that is a human on the path of truth. A hypocrite continues to live in that sin, but denies it. There are no perfect people, just people who try to live right, hypocrites and others who glorify their sin. God commands we look at our own sins, and try to treat others with forgiveness and love, and not share their sin.

  • Sand Man

    LOL…the article says…”It isn’t hypocritical to fail to live up to your own moral standards.” Sorry…but that is the VERY definition of hypocrisy…

  • Ron Turner

    HAHA
    No, Al, “not even readable” is an alleged sentence that begins with “Like”.

  • Ron Turner

    Buy a dictionary, ignoramus.

  • disqus_p5U5lrkfew

    I can’t imagine why I’d need one. I seem to have a vastly better grasp of the language than you do. Is that your entire point, a personal insult that isn’t even valid? You don’t have anything else to argue with? How embarrassing it must be to be you. You have my condolences. Not, however, my sympathies, as both your belligerent ignorance and your decision to display it so publicly are entirely your own.

  • disqus_p5U5lrkfew

    Considering that you spell “ignoramus” without the proper “o”, I believe it’s safe to say you’re just as American as he is and therefore really not justified in complaining about people throwing useless words into sentences. You know, sort of how you’re throwing useless posts into an otherwise serious discussion between posters with actual opinions to offer and not schoolyard insults.

  • abvaaron216

    “It isn’t hypocritical to fail to live up to your own moral standards.”
    What the FUCK did I just read? No, that is pretty much the exact dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

  • forple

    I find this whole issue a splendid example of just how the liberal elite are capable of jerking everyone in this country like a small poodle on a leash. All the people on this thread and other threads, all the conservative commentators slamming Kim, how many of them have ever heard of Rowan County Kentucky, or Kim Davis before this. Sad reality is Kim is a strong Christian, who, yes, has made mistakes in her past, but with God’s grace, put her life right. She also will not go along with the liberal elite and embrace what ever current sexual perversion they are currently pushing, which, is now homosexuality. She also will not turn her back on her faith, so she must be destroyed. Sadly, she will quite likely not be the only one, as destroying Christians seems to be the major focus of democrats, the main stream media, and other members of the far left

  • disqus_p5U5lrkfew

    The thing is, no one – including the judge – has said she does not have a right to her faith. She can come into work carrying a Bible in each hand, have a cross at her desk, and drink coffee out of a “Jesus loves me” coffee cup if she likes. That’s not the problem.

    The problem is that because of the constitutional separation of church and state, she does NOT, as an elected official, have the right to prevent people from following the laws of the federal government. She doesn’t have to like it, endorse it, believe in it, or even be particularly nice about it, but she has to do her job correctly or be removed from it just like everyone else.

    If it is against your religious beliefs to perpetuate violence, then don’t work in a gun store. If you started working at a fishing store and it starts carrying guns (for deer hunting, officially), then you have to decide if you want to keep your job or grit your teeth and sell some guns, not knowing how they’ll be used. If you try telling the boss you don’t want to sell people guns, he has every right to toss you out the door – you are no longer performing your job duties.

    Same deal. Her job is to issue marriage licences, not decide who she personally believes is worthy of having them. She should have taken the same step many other county clerks did and step down if she was uncomfortable with performing her job duties after the SCOTUS ruling. She chose to wage a one-woman-war on the law and she lost. Hard. Therefore unlike all the reasonable clerks who abandoned their positions and moved on with favourable CVs, this one is getting jail time, probably impeached afterward, and will have bad publicity as an employee nationwide.

  • Comrade Carrot-Blog Vegetarian

    It really is a wonderful thing that county clerks and former alcoholic meth heads had the freedom to fail to live up to the standards of holiness. Thankfully, they’re not hypocrites…just former sinners who are now pure and sinless.

    Achoholics and adulturers turned gods can condem adultery now, because they no longer commit adultery. Jesus said nothing about lusting in one’s heart after all. Now having been saved, they were never lost, and now having been redeemed, they have never sinned.

    Would that we all had the freedom to fail, and then be redeemed.

  • forple

    Dammn, let’s try to look at reality her. First, there is NO, NO constitutional wall of separation of church and state, does not exist. There is NO, NO, damn law legalizing homosexual marriage simply a supreme court edict passed down by a group of black robed thugs, sitting on the bench of the supreme court. REAL WORLD, she IS doing her job. Her job is to give a wedding license to any man and woman. who comes into her office and asks for one. No one has changed her job description telling her she needs to issue bogus homosexual marriage licenses, so yes she is still doing her job. The liberal elites of course, do not like this, so they jerk your leash and everybody else’s leash, knowing you will dutifully perform, and howl for the destruction of this courageous woman, and sadly, large numbers of people dutifully perform as programmed. What is so frustrating, at this time of the year all over this country, you will see news stories about teachers engaging in illegal strikes, actually breaking the law, yet you don’t hear any shrill cries how these teachers should lose their jobs and put into prison, because the liberal elites are OK with what they are doing.

  • Nathaniel

    Are you saying that Baptists aren’t Christian? Because that’s what she was before she joined her current church.

  • >’We live in a culture which preaches against “slut-shaming” and says everything goes sexually.’

    The level of insanity and detachment from reality that goes into writing a sentence like that is almost beyond belief. No, we don’t live in such a culture. Not even close. For just one example out of maybe countless, the “gay panic” and “trans panic” defense for assaults has only be legislated against in one state– ONE state– and that’s California. In numerous places across the country, someone that’s possessed with hate for LGBT people can shoot, stab, punch, kick, etc an LGBT person and then claim that they “panicked” because they had been asked out on a date (because somehow that’s such a terrible thing) as a legal defense– rolling the dice on getting a jury that might have enough conservative Christians on it to find the assailant “not guilty”.

    Speaking of law, it wasn’t until about ten years ago that existing– just EXISTING– as a homosexual was declared legal in all fifty states thanks to Lawrence v. Texas. Before then, just something like kissing or holding hands in public could be an offense against law and order. It wasn’t until a matter of mere months ago that LGBT people had the ability in all fifty states to marry at least in theory (people like Kim Davis, of course, are still fighting for big government power to keep that from happening).

    Ugh… just… ugh…

  • Indeed.

  • That’s the truth.

  • disqus_p5U5lrkfew

    Okay, so basically you’ve come here to condemn whomever you believe is a “liberal” – I’m not even American, so that doesn’t even apply to begin with, and I’m not politically attached to any group in any country anyhow – ignoring all laws, realities, conceptions, or whatever else stands in your way of pushing your personal agenda. Have you actually got any facts here? Because the ones you’re presented are completely incorrect, as even less than five minutes on Google would demonstrate, if you could be arsed. Forgive me if I don’t consider your position particularly persuasive in those circumstances.

  • SuzyQ

    Married 4X. Divorced 3X. A child out of wedlock. When she went to obtain marriage License #4, what would she have done if the license issuer had said NO, you are not a good enough Christian, in my opinion, to have a 4th marriage license and refused her? I cannot speak for the rest of the world: GOD, did not make her my MORAL COMPASS!

  • forple

    disqus_p5U5lrkfew
    You say you are not at American, which likely explains why you cannot write very legibly. Please try again and I will try to respond to whatever misperceptions you might be laboring under

  • disqus_p5U5lrkfew

    Uh, dear sir, there are no grammatical errors in my post and over a dozen in yours. Again, you are choosing to persecute people solely on the basis of them being different from you, without any actual basis in fact or reality. In addition to your jingoistic, nationalist, and quite possibly veiled racist remarks. Bonus points for trying to be condescending in the process. Problem is, you can’t speak to people as though they are beneath you when you’re already at the bottom. Good day, sir. I am done with you. 🙂

  • forple

    disqus_p5U5lrkfew “- ignoring all laws, realities, conceptions, or whatever else stands in your way of pushing your personal agenda. Have you actually got any facts here” was what I was referring to. No racism, bigotry involved here, just confusion. Everything I originally posted is based on real world facts. So just what do you have a problem with?

  • Jeff

    Uh, absolutely NOTHING you posted was based on real world facts. Everything was based on your laughable opinions as a bigoted born-againer.
    Sorry that you’re in denial about the power of the Supreme Court, but were it not for those ‘black-robed thugs’, every racial and religious minority, as well as every woman in this country, would still be second-class citizens thanks to the wretched ‘morality’ of white, male Protestant Bible worshippers, who spent the majority of this country’s existence using the ‘word of God’ to keep them in subservience.

  • Jeff

    The French’s aren’t well known for their appreciation of rigorous logic and facts, no matter what their self-written press releases may say.

  • forple

    Jeff
    Sorry, but Everything I posted is based on REAL WORLD facts. As for the nobility of the supreme court, look up Dred Scott, and read the UNITED STATES CONSTiTUTION as to the powers of the court

  • Jeff

    This is a common loophole that evangelicals and fundamentalists often use to get around a major lapse in their walk with the Lord. They convince themselves that they weren’t really saved when that awful sin happened, then promise themselves that this time they’re really really REALLY going to live for God, and often reinforce this mental adjustment with a change of denomination.
    Since Kimmy already used up her fundie Baptist limit, she moved on to a much more legalistic Pentecostal denomination – you know, where the Spirit of God is ALIVE, unlike those dead Baptist churches she used to attend.

  • CruisingTroll

    If she had half a brain, she would have done exactly what the Founders of this country envisioned. She would have gone on down the road and found a county clerk who would issue it.

    Mandatory “One size fits all” was one of the things that our Constitution was designed to PREVENT. Nowhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is there ANY authority for the Federal government to dictate how individuals interact with one another. NOWHERE. How powerful is the totalitarian urge? It took a SINGLE set of Amendments designed to address a SINGLE relationship between individuals (slavery) to open the door for the Federal government to get “all up in our business.”

  • tomstur

    You might be amazed whom encompasses your moral guidance. Every situation carries a message, its not the message you follow its your character that acts upon it. Whom did God assign to your conscious. Mr. and Misses Moral Values that,s whom.

  • Franklin Owen

    She fully recognizes that she is a sinner in need of Grace. But, for her to knowingly commit a sin is to crucify Christ anew. She sees the signing of a marriage license to a gay couple as a sin. She is not alone. A very small percentage of sexual deviants and perverts are wielding way to much sway in our society at the moment, but if it ever hits the fan, there are those among us who will root you out and hunt you down. They will exact the Biblical punishment upon you and rid the world of those who try to force their perversion on the rest of us. There are many out there that don’t give a rip about what the deviates think. Period.

  • Franklin Owen

    Her job is to follow the laws of the state, as an employee of the state. The Supreme Court has no place in making laws. The Federal Government has no place in superceding State Law.

  • Comrade Carrot-Blog Vegetarian

    Hi Franklin,

    I’m interested in dialogue with people who take this conversation seriously.

    Unless your response suggests to me that that’s you, I won’t be engaging you any further.

  • Lookingup73

    So true – no where in the founding documents does it dictate how folks are to interact with each other on a personal level. This situation is not personal of course since she works for the government and took an oath (I assume – I know I did when I worked for the government) to uphold the policies of that government. The situation was not an interaction between the gay couple and Kim Davis. it was an interaction between the gay couple (citizens) and their government (through its representative, Kim Davis). End of story.

  • guadalupelavaca

    She’s seen more ceilings than Michael Angelo. But you’re right, the fact that commits adultery and has children out of wedlock is none of our business.

    What is our business is a public official who takes a salary from the taxpayers and refuses to perform her duty. She is a thief. Also, she prevented other clerks from issuing licences, which is obstruction of justice–a felony. She is a criminal. She needs to go to prison.

  • Jenny Doughty

    She can be as pure as she likes, but she can’t do it on the dime of the tax payers who pay her salary. If she can’t in all conscience do her job as the law requires her, she should resign. End of.

  • El Capitan

    “problem is that because of the constitutional separation of church and state, she ” Show me in the Constitution where it says separation of church and state!

  • CruisingTroll

    And the Constitution of the State of Kentucky forbids gay marriage. Federal dictates on the matter are unconstitutional, ergo she IS upholding the policies of her government.

    Sorry, but as long as Sanctuary City officials are not sitting in the Federal pokey for violating Federal laws in an area that clearly does fall under Federal authority (i.e. immigration), and elected/appointed officials in Washington, Colorado and other states are not sitting in jail for a criminal conspiracy to distribute illegal narcotics (i.e. marijuana), an area of dubious Federal authority yet with far greater impact, then the VERY SAME 14th Amendment (Equal Treatment) demands that the Feds LEAVE HER ALONE.

    That’s not going to happen, because she is guilty of WrongThink, not because she is guilty of not upholding the law or doing her job.

    In isolation, jailing her can, perhaps, be upheld. In full context though, it simply demonstrates the growing illegitimacy of our government.

    Justice is an intemperate bitch when She takes her blindfold off.

  • Lookingup73

    Interesting comparisons and definitely food for thought. Of course, federal officials do not follow the local marijuana laws of Colorado, just to be clear. Even federal employees are not allowed to use pot in states that allow it. The marriage issue is different because the Kentucky law was ruled unconstitutional. No similar cases have occurred with the examples you raised. Although, they are great for further thinking.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    No, you don’t understand. She’s been born again AGAIN. That first time didn’t count.

  • otrotierra

    Kim Davis behind bars is what justice looks like. Imagine how offended she’ll be when she hears about Jesus, silent on same-sex marriage and undeniably opposed to divorce. Who will dare tell her and her frothing-at-the-mouth followers?

  • otrotierra

    She can call herself whatever she wants, but somebody needs to tell her about Jesus, who remained silent on the matter of same-sex marriage.

  • otrotierra

    The only theology Kim Davis can claim is a self-serving theology of her own narrow opinion. If there is such a thing as a Theology Of/For the Self, Kim Davis and her followers are living examples.

  • ChrisKid

    Since the very design of our government sets the Supreme Court up as the arbiter of whether a law is constitutional, how do you figure that a ruling by that court can be unconstitutional?
    I think you’re seriously misreading the intent and the wording of the 14th, along with not understanding how the system works. But then, that wouldn’t fit your personal bias, now would it?

  • But she is a hypocrite Nancy, as are all these other people who inflict their religion on other people in their professional capacity because of “sincerely held religious beliefs” and so forth. Be it from baking a cake, to filling prescriptions for pharmaceuticals commonly referred to as “birth control”, to issuing a piece of paper that states two people meet all eligibility requirements mandated by the state to get married. These people claim that they cannot perform that function because to do so would violate their sacred beliefs.

    Of course they cite Leviticus 18:22 as their justification. The interesting thing is that no one really wants to bring up the fact the the bible is rather specific about what to do in these situations. They need to quit their job or close their business. It’s right there in Matthew 18:8-9.

    18:8 – “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it
    away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to
    have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”

    18:9 – “And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.
    It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes
    and be thrown into the fire of hell.”

    So if her job was going to force her to sin, she needed to quit the job. That is her hypocrisy.

  • ChrisKid

    The problem, as I see it, is not that her personal life has been a major trainwreck and comes nowhere near the standard she would impose on others. If I’m reading the various articles correctly, her rebirth as a Christian came after most, if not all, of that, which makes it a moot point for any of this. No, the problem, and what does make her something of a hypocrite, is that she picked one single standard out of several that are mentioned in scripture, and that’s the one she decided to stand on. I find it much less likely that belief drove her feelings on this than that her personal feelings caused her to grasp the scripture as a reason and she didn’t question her own reasons.

  • 0pus35

    Lefties are so blind to their own hypocrisy – like women voting in droves for predatory scum like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, Dimocrats wallowing in money while they claim to care about the working class, Al “Lard” Gore telling us to ride the bus while he owns a house that uses more electricity than the state of Rhode Island. Of course they want people to assume a link between religion and hypocrisy – nice deflection from progressive hypocrisy, like the people claiming to be “tolerant” and “inclusive” and never practicing. No Christian on earth could ever match the hypocrisy of the Left, they are the gold standard.

  • ncgma

    You should read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  • ncgma

    Jesus himself stated, “Neither do I. (condemn you), Go and sin no more.” It is interesting that the Westboro Baptist Church totally agrees with what you are saying and is condemning Ms. Davis. Sounds as if you two will really get along.

  • Diaris

    Say whatever you like, dude. Nice of you Christians to rally to her support, you are so kind. Good to see you unified in love.

  • How is that relevant? She’s not being discriminated against because of her religion.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    Whether or not she’s a hypocrite has little to do with the actual case, except to support whether her views are “sincerely held religious beliefs.” She apparently became an Apostolic Christian in 2011, and all evidence seems to support that her views are genuine.

    But here’s where I think she is hypocritical: Her church is against divorce in most cases, and believe marriage should only occur between 2 Christians. I have trouble believing that in the 10 months or so she’s been a clerk she has not issued a license to people of different faiths, or non-believers. Or if an applicant is divorced, did she delve into the details to determine if the reason is compatible with her beliefs?

    She can pick and choose which parts of the Bible and her religion to believe, but it makes the legal case harder if her personal religious beliefs don’t conform to some formal religious sect.
    That all said, when Kentucky’s legislature convenes in Sept, they may come to some agreement, such as taking all names of county clerks on the applications. Then, she had have a deputy or someone else physically handle the applications for gay couples.
    But really folks, these are first world problems.

  • ugluk2

    She is a hypocrite if she wants to be paid and refuses to do her job. If a Christian was an Air Force pilot and became a convinced pacifist, he would be a hypocrite if he refused to obey orders to bomb an Isis position and yet expected to be paid. He should resign if he cannot carry out his duties in good conscience.

  • Red Mann

    Doesn’t sound like you have a moral compass.

  • Here’s the thing: the issue at hand isn’t her religious beliefs. She’s permitted those under the Constitution. However, as has been shown by Supreme Court rulings in the past, religious beliefs do not excuse someone from the consequences of failing to adhere to the laws of the land.

    For example: if you believe, sincerely, that a god tells you to murder your children, you still get charged with murder. While this is an extreme example, the principle remains the same. Religious belief does not protect against violating the law. Ms. Davis refuses to issue liceneses because she wants others to live according to her religious beliefs.

    You get to have your religious beliefs. You do not get to make others live according to them.

  • Well written.

  • She cannot claim discrimination when actively engaging in an act of discrimination.

  • Incorrect. SCOTUS rulings are considered to cover all states. Now if push comes to shove, someone could take the state of Kentucky to court over their anti-gay marriage law. And when it went before the highest court in Kentucky, guess which case they will cite when they overturn the state’s law? Here’s a hint: they’ll cite the case from the highest federal bench in the land.

    This is also why constitutional amendments take precedence over state amendments. The U.S. Constitution takes precedence at all times over the state constitutions.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    Exactly! Parents, whose religion doesn’t allow medical intervention, have been prosecuted for allowing their children to die, when they could have been successfully treated. Religious freedom, like our other Constitutional freedoms, has its limits.

  • RustbeltRick

    Why should I support her? I disagree with her.

  • Not to mention in her capacity as County Clerk she was an acting agent of the State of Kentucky, not her cult.

  • Bellz Webster

    If it were a Muslim lady saying the same thing, would the world be jumping down their throat knowing what their beliefs are?

  • Jason Westerly

    I’m certain that it is not hypocritical for a government official to criminally deny me my civil right to be civilly married even when that official has sullied her own faith’s definition of marriage, because she sent a magic thought to Jesus about it. Lol

    We are calling her a hypocrite because she says Jesus loves her and has forgiven her while the same time committing a crime to make sure us terrible homos are stymied at every attempt we make to form long term relationships.

    And with many evangelicals calling our committed faithful relationship worse than bestiality, your sullying of the institution of marriage makes us sick. Has it ever occurred to you that gays are entering into a solemn conservative act by getting married? We appear to have far more respect for the institution than you do.

    The continued denial of our civil right to get civilly married is both a crime and a sin. Stop supporting evil and repent.

  • Jason Westerly

    You appear to worship Fox News Jesus instead of real Jesus. Change your hate channel and find words of your own rather than regurgitated sound bites.

    Look, as a government official, she cannot deny lawful civil rights to people. Religious liberty is not about forcing your beliefs on others using the tools of government. I could care less who you want to bake cakes for -that is not government. Now keep your stinking hate away from us and our families. Leave us alone. And if you work in government, do your job and stop being a criminal.

  • Just Saying

    that sounded pretty serious to me. in fact down right biblical.
    you know what the muslims say. they are to ‘enjoin the good and forbid the evil’. and there are 3 ways to forbid the evil. first though force, second through speech and if unable to do that, then to hate it in your heart.

  • Just Saying

    jesus was an idiot.

  • Seabass

    It’s likely.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    But couldn’t she be called a hypocrite if she issued marriage licenses to divorced people, couples who lived together, couples who committed adultery or other sex sins spoken about in the Bible? Seems its only the sin she could see she reacted to.

    Maybe we should ask EVERY one running for public office if the courts or federal/state government approved laws/rulings the person running for public office disagreed with based on sincerely held religious beliefs, would they still adhere to the law.

  • Dorfl

    [… ] there are those among us who will root you out and hunt you down.

    Nancy and David French, do you ever worry about the fact that this is the kind of person who ends up joining your side?

  • Kyle Cardinal

    She took an oath you fucktards!! And it wasn’t to profess batshit crazy superstitions while belittling the oppressed. You idiots cant fly your flag of love and scream hate anymore, The net doesn’t allow you to hide you idiocy any longer. Welcome to public accountability! What about the part of the Bible that says we shall not suffer a woman to teach? Her telling us about god is going against god. The guy shes sacrificing her job to protect has her classified with the farm animals and property. Read the resat of that book not just the stuff the guy in the pretty dresss tells you to…A dress made of a silk,Cotton/polyester blend…………

  • Kyle Cardinal

    Yes she can and is…This article is Christian right wing propaganda….Awww Were being persecuted because were not allowed to publicly humiliate and hate people…Awwww But love n stuff

  • Issuing marriage licenses is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job of clerk. If she is unable to perform the BFOQ (with reasonable accommodation), she can legally be disqualified from the job despite being in a protected class.

    Of course this is moot because Davis is an elected official.

    You might want to brush up on your Title VII before trying to belittle others.

  • 14thkid

    Satan is doing all he can to destroy Gods Children. Some of the people
    commenting on here YOU are walking right into satans trap. What you
    don’t understanding is NO matter what or how you have sinned as Kim or
    so many of us has, if you come to Jesus and ask him into your hearts He
    will FORGIVE every thing you have done, Only if you truly mean it, just
    like Kim and so many of us has. God will never hold it over your heads
    like satan and his followers do. Christians stand firm against Satan by
    reflecting Christ’s
    characteristics in their lives. In Eph.6:10-13, Paul calls this “putting on the
    full armor of God.”

    John 15:18 If
    the world hate you, you know that it hated me before it hated you.

  • Stogiebear

    I understand homosexuals hating this lady. But Christians?
    To the so-called “Christians” who are hating her: your voices found familiar, something the New Testament: “Crucify him!” (Mark 15:13). At the end, you won’t be judged by a jury of homosexuals, you’ll have to face the Judge that outranks those dunces on the SCOTUS.

  • Cheryl

    She is using her religion as an excuse, claiming to follow God’s law above man’s. Okay, fine, well according to God’s law she is living in sin with husband number four, because God’s law doesn’t allow for multiple marriages. It’s hypocritical of her to insist on sticking to biblical law as far as homosexuals are concerned, when she’s not following it in her own life. It has nothing to do with slut-shaming. It’s calling her on her hypocrisy.

    It’s asking her to be consistent and not use her religion to justify her prejudice. It’s also asking her to do the job she was elected to do, or resign.

  • Cheryl

    According to the book she claims to follow, you can’t be forgiven unless you repent. She is committing adultery by God’s law and continues to do so. That is not repenting. If you’re going to use God’s law to justify not allowing homosexuals to marry, then you either use it in every aspect of your life or you’re a hypocrite.

  • Cheryl

    So according to her own beliefs, every time she sleeps with her husband, she’s knowingly crucifying Christ, because her 4th marriage doesn’t count in God’s eyes.

    I don’t believe in any of this, but if you’re going to use the rules in your magic book to excuse your prejudice, you need to use it for everything you do.

  • Cheryl

    But she hasn’t put her life right. She’s still committing adultery by the rules she follows. That’s not being a strong Christian, it’s using your beliefs to justify your prejudice while not following the rules yourself.

  • Cheryl

    I’m paraphrasing, but it’s the part where it says the government may not make any law promoting any one religion above the others.

  • Straight Shooter

    People with no conscience have trouble understanding people who have a conscience. It would be like explaining Rembrandt to a blind person – can’t be done.

  • Straight Shooter

    You geeks don’t think, you just build a sentence around the word “hate.” People who talk about hate constantly must be world-class haters. You assume everyone else is like you. Not true, thank God.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    Kim Davis has a conscience. It may be hate-filled but it is still there.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    “Christians stand firm against Satan by reflecting Christ’s characteristics in their lives.”
    If you think that Kim Davis is reflecting Christ’s charateristics in her life, you and I have a very different idea of what those characteristics are.

  • The better question is if it were a Muslim man at the DMV denying women their drivers’ licences, would you be defending his religious freedom?

  • disqus_p5U5lrkfew

    This is the crux of why this article is complete rubbish; even if any of these three reasons were valid – and let’s be clear, none of them are – there’s still at least twice as many reasons *to* call her a hypocrite. I mean it’s like trying to write up an article about how the KKK isn’t really that bad for society; even IF it were well-written, it’s still not going to accomplish much.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    “Separation of church and state is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    If you wish to talk about american political and social issues, it is something that is important to know.

    Don’t you have something similar in the country where you live?

  • Neal Bracken

    Kim Davis should have recalled that Jesus said,”Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”: Matthew 22:21. That sure sounds like separation of church and state to me. In addition, before she took her position she had to take an oath (under God) to uphold the law. By denying same gender couples their marriage licenses she violated that oath (under God). She also went counter to Jesus’ words.

  • forple

    Maybe find a good Christian church and try to familiarize yourself with Christianity. You might find it intertesting

  • Jeff

    Utter nonsense – this woman is a hypocrite because she is screaming persecution while she abuses her position to illegally persecute people her religious instruction has taught her to hate.

    This has nothing to do with how many husbands she was unfaithful to, and everything to do with her “moral” objections based on standards she can barely articulate, much less live up to.

  • Jeff

    It must be nice to live a life being able to childishly demand exception from the consequences of your actions, and actually get taken seriously.

  • Jim

    Kim Davis’s private life makes no difference. She is a public servant and is paid by the very people seeking marriage licenses. They have a right to be served by her. Her attorney argues the law giving same sex people the right to marry came after she took her oath of office, so she has no obligation to follow it. Many communities have new laws prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving. Police officers who don’t like that law still have an obligation to enforce it.

  • Cheryl

    My conscience tells me to treat people as I wish to be treated. It also tells me that if I am going to use a set of rules to judge others by, I’d damned well better be able to follow those rules myself and not cherry pick only the ones that suit my own personal prejudices.

  • Cheryl

    Also, it’s not the fact that she’s had four marriages that makes her a hypocrite. It’s the fact that she has had four marriages and is judging gay people for wanting to marry once. How do you not get that?

    I don’t judge anyone for having four marriages. People make mistakes. We’re all fallible. However, when those people who have made their mistakes stand up and start telling others how they must live, that’s when they’re hypocrites.

    She’s not doing this for her religion. She’s not living by ‘God’s law’ as she puts it. She’s prejudiced and she’s using her religion as justification for her prejudiced actions. That’s why she’s a hypocrite.

  • Cheryl

    Oh, I’m quite familiar with Christianity. I’ve read The Bible. The whole of it – not just the bits that support my arguments. That’s why I’m an atheist. And that’s why I can see how much of a hypocrite she is. She claims to follow God’s law, well God’s law says she’s living in sin as an adulterer, so she’s got no business deciding who can or can’t get married.

    Man’s law is what gives her the right to divorce and remarry.

  • Cheryl

    “The government may not make any law promoting one religion above others.” Or words to that effect. There’s your separation of church and state, right there. Christianity is not the official religion of the United States because there isn’t one.

  • Diane Cherechinsky

    Kim really needs a GOOD women to make her happy.She’s surpressing her real feelings.Thats why she’s been married three times!

  • Diane Cherechinsky

    They don’t hate her,they WANT HER!!!!!!!!!!

  • Handy Graph

    If you were trying to evoke nausea, mission accomplished.

  • Handy Graph

    Women can definitely out-hate men. It’s amazing to watch the way women gang up on another woman. And yet they pretend that “patriarchy” is some huge problem. Bosh. Women love nothing better than ripping another one to shreds.

  • Handy Graph

    Ladies don’t swear.

    You have plenty of your own personal prejudices to work on, and according to the Bible, that’s where it’s supposed start. Hating a woman you don’t even know is not Christian behavior.

  • Handy Graph

    Flagged.

    You need to be removed, fast.

  • Cheryl

    Calling her out on her hypocrisy isn’t hate. Disagreeing with her isn’t hate. I have no hate for her or any other woman. I just want her to stop being a hypocrite and do her job.

  • Handy Graph

    Your posts overflow with agape love.

  • Cheryl

    There are no swear words in my post. And who are you to tell me what ladies do or don’t do?

    Also, show me where I said I hated her, or showed her any hatred. Disagreeing with someone, or calling out their hypocrisy is not hatred. She’s the one showing hatred by refusing people their human rights as decreed by the highest authority in the United States.

  • Cheryl

    Ah, you edited your post again to take out the insults about ‘women like me’. Hypocrite.

    You have me mistaken for someone who cares what you think of women like me. And you also have me mistaken for someone who a) goes to church and b) gives a hoot what your imaginary friend thinks.

  • Handy Graph

    You mean SCOTUS?
    SCOTUS said human beings were property, and that segregation was OK.

  • Handy Graph

    You care what Christians think, because you are on a Christian blog.

  • Cheryl

    The Bible says slavery is okay too. Your point?

    I have no religion. I would have thought that was obvious. I don’t worship anyone, especially not that capricious, morally bankrupt being you call ‘God’.

  • Handy Graph

    That’s nice.

  • Cheryl

    I see what you’re trying to do. Just what I’d expect from someone morally bankrupt enough to say ‘we Christians don’t care what gays’ think and then change it after I reply. Lucky I have screenshots of what this looked like before.

    Slimy. Very slimy. But then what would I expect from someone like you.

  • Handy Graph

    Why is it un-Christian?

  • Cheryl

    I can edit my replies too, see? 🙂

  • Handy Graph

    You’re as straight as a corkscrew.

  • Cheryl

    Why are you editing your posts? Are you trying to make yourself look less of a bigot and so that my replies don’t match what you said? Is that what being a liar for Jesus is all about?

    It says a lot of things. But Jesus himself never said anything against gays. Leviticus did. But he also said that adultery was punishable by stoning, and we don’t do that either (lucky for Kim huh?).

  • Handy Graph

    So you’re not a Christian, but you decide what is and is not Christian?

    Who gave you authority over us?

  • Cheryl

    And you’re as nutty as a fruitcake.

  • Handy Graph

    Thanks for playing.

    Spend ten minutes with an atheist and it’s easy to see why their suicide rates are high.

  • Cheryl

    I have no authority over anyone. Nor do you. What’s your point? However, if your Christ behaves one way, which is ‘Christian’, and you behave in the opposite way, then it’s quite reasonable to deduct that your behaviour is un-Christian, is it not?

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/30855505/bigotspeech.pdf

  • Cheryl

    No, bigot baiting is a sport. I’m pretty good at it, don’t you think?

    Oh, and changing your posts won’t work: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/30855505/bigotspeech.pdf

  • Cheryl

    No, thank you for playing, and showing just what a hypocrite and liar you are. Have a lovely day. And don’t worry, your secret is safe with me. And the rest of the folks here. 😉

  • guadalupelavaca

    And she will get one in jail. They say, “gay for the stay, straight at the gate.” Who knows, she might get the best sex of her life and come out advocating gay marriage. Wouldn’t that be an irony. “I’ve had 4 husbands and none of them could please me like my cellmate Latanya.”

  • forple

    Cheryl “.First Amendment – Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ” Until the 1960s Christianity WAS the unofficial American Religion,0.

  • forple

    Cheryl trying to get someone like you (a devout atheist), to understand Christianity,would be like trying to describe a Van Gogh or a Picasso to a man blind from birth. Sadly the ignorance of Christianity is all too common in our society today, just look at the large number of utterly clueless postings on this thread and others calling this clerk a hypocrite. Reality is, Christians understand that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, But you ask God for Forgiveness, and God will forgive you of those sins and with the help of Jesus you can live a good Christian life. As Christians we are called to “love the sinner, hate the sin”, which is what this woman is doing.

  • Semp

    Sleaze.

  • Trevor Stoute

    You’re right .. Hypocrisy isn’t the issue.
    The issue is poor theology, a misunderstanding of who Jesus is and what he’s about, and misrepresenting God to everyone out there.
    And the fault probably lies in where she got her teaching. There is a serious dearth of genuine Christian doctrine and teaching in this country, and the people that reap the reward for that are my neighbor and God.
    Sad, that. Tragic.

  • Steve67

    So when an alcoholic quits drinking and manages to stay sober then it’s hypocritical for them to suggest to someone else that they are drinking too much? Really? By that absurd definition then anyone who has ever been a sponsor in AA is a hypocrite.

    And you say you don’t judge yet you presume to know that she is only using her religion as a justification for her prejudice?? And how do you know this?? I can only assume that you must have some insight on her life that most other people don’t. I can only assume that you know her personally. Otherwise that would mean that you were speculating based only on what you saw of her in the news. That would mean that you were judging her. And we know that can’t be the case since you don’t judge. So tell everyone what is this great insight that you have on Ms Davis? We all know you must have it because if you didn’t that would mean that you are a hypocrite.

  • Steve67

    She has never once claimed persecution. She has admitted that what she is doing is an act of civil disobedience. But it’s what she believes in.

    So tell me, since you’re so concerned about people abusing their power, I can only assume that you were equally outraged at Gavin Newsom ignoring the laws of his own state when he was the mayor of San Francisco and unilaterally deciding that he was going to act above the law by ordering city clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses. If you’re outraged at Ms Davis but you weren’t at that then you’re a hypocrite. Or what about Hillary Clinton’s national security violations? Or what about DC officials continuing to defy federal laws by refusing to issue Concealed Carry Permits.

    The real hypocrites here are the liberals feigning outrage at Ms Davis while ignoring other much more blatant acts of defiance of the law from their own. To liberals, lawlessness is only wrong when it goes against what they believe.

  • Cheryl

    Since atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, then being ‘devout’ isn’t possible. As you don’t believe in Zeus, or any of the other gods, I don’t believe in yours (or any of the others). So, I’m sure you can see that calling me ‘devout’ would be like saying that you are devout disbeliever in Zeus, or Thor. Sounds silly, doesn’t it?

    So what you’re saying is that because she asked for forgiveness for her adultery, she’s a good Christian? But doesn’t forgiveness require you to stop sinning? Because she’s still committing adultery (according to the Bible).

    If it’s the case that she doesn’t have to stop sinning to be forgiven, then what’s the big problem with allowing gay people to marry? All they have to do is pray and be forgiven and then they can carry on sinning as much as they want, right?

    If the case is that she does have to stop sinning, then yes, I’m afraid she is a hypocrite. And so are all the so-called Christians who are willing to overlook her sin but not the sins of others.

    I don’t care what her past is, personally. And I wouldn’t have judged her on it, had she not set herself up as a judge of others. Who is she to deny others what she has taken so lightly?

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Forple may I ask as one Christian to another Christian if she has processed marriage licenses for people in her community who are known to be serial adulterers, or are known to be getting married for the wrong reasons would she not be a hypocrite?

    As for trying to describe a Van Gogh or a Picasso to a man blind from birth. They actually have special enhanced paintings the blind can touch that have wetness for water heat for the sun, cold for snow etc . Both in France and Italy and now here in San Francisco and NYC.

    And I still think when someone runs for public office we need to start asking them if the government in any way allowed for a law they disagreed with would they do as the government said or not.

  • Cheryl

    No, but when an alcoholic who is still drinking refuses to sell someone else alcohol it’s hypocritical. She hasn’t stopped committing adultery. So by her rules she’s still sinning.

    It’s obvious that she’s only using her religion to justify her prejudice because of the hypocrisy above. There is one mention in the Bible of homosexuality, in Leviticus. In that same book, it also says that adultery is an abomination, eating shellfish is an abomination, and so is wearing cloth made from two different fibres. Yet, people who are against homosexuality will quite happily eat shellfish and wear clothes made from more than one fibre. If they can break those rules, why are they so insistent on sticking with the one about homosexuality, if it’s not because of prejudice?

    According to the laws of your religion, only your first marriage is recognised by God. So unless this woman goes back to her first husband, by God’s law she is committng adultery.

    So no, I’m not a hypocrite. I’m not denying people the same rights I have, while breaking the rules I claim to follow. That’s what she’s doing.

  • Excelsior

    Sorry, but she is a hypocrite. She is using the bible to deny gay people the right to marry by saying it’s against god’s will, the same bible that says divorce is against god’s will but she has done so three times. She denies gay people but does not deny people who have been divorced. It’s literally the definition of hypocrisy.

  • Cheryl

    Yes, the Establishment Clause is the separation of church and state. What else can it mean?

    Unofficial religion isn’t official religion. Until the 50s, there was no ‘in God we trust’ on the currency, or ‘under God’ in the pledge.

    None of this means that government employees are allowed to force their religion on others.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Stogiebear you ask why would Christians hate Ms. Davis. Christians are not perfect. Christians sin. And even some conservative Christians are making some vile and hateful comments about those who disagree with Ms. Davis.

    And this is a country of laws and the same Bible you quote from also says that we Christians are to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (the government laws) and unto the Lord that which is the Lords. If we dislike a law we need to make a reasoned argument that will convince voters to change a law.

    In 1 Corinthians 10:14 it says we are to flee from idolatry and in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 it tells us as Christians to abstain from EVERY form of evil. So why would ANY Christian stay in a job where one is told to do ungodly idolatry activities or stay in a job where the requirements of the job are evil?

    Would a walk the talk Bible believing Christian who believes pornography, alcohol, gambling is a sin, stay in a job that required them to sell adult magazines, alcohol or lottery tickets? Either a walk the talk Christians stays in a sinful job or they leave

  • So you’re A-OK with government clerks denying people their 2nd amendment rights, then, even though the law from the Supreme Court on down has held in support of individual liberty? Since you support Kim Davis, then you must therefore axiomatically support a Person X clerk that’s a religious pacifist and anti-gay ideologue that denies permits even though it’s his job– sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you find a problem with that, then you must be against Kim Davis.

  • Not even Christian is a theocrat who believes that everybody (whether Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, deist, whatever) should be forced against their will through government coercion to obey religious edicts.

    I doubt you, as a Christian, would like to live in Saudi Arabia, where Islamic law is the end all and be all of civil society. And yet what you want here in the U.S. is an exact mirror image of that only with ‘Team A’ at the top replacing ‘Team B’. The big government nanny state is the same.

  • Where in the gospels does Jesus say that Christians should take over secular government and use secular authority to force people to obey religious law against their will, even if they’re not from the Christian religion themselves?

    I’ll give you a hint: It’s not there. Jesus was not an armed insurrectionist who wanted to storm Roman military facilities and capture government institutions in order to make clerks enforce religious edicts. Those people existed in the 1st century. The gospels say that Jesus wasn’t one of them.

  • Yes. Yes, they would.

  • You can believe what you want. You don’t have the right to use the big government nanny state to make people obey your whims. Leave your government out of people’s wallets, bedrooms, gun cabinets, etc.

  • Cheryl D Millard

    Q: What do dogs, sheep and Christians have in common?
    A: The majority of them sound the same.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Your comment was as tasteless and thoughtless as some man saying that the nice looking lesbian he just met just needs to have sex with a man to be cured.

    Or some woman saying that the handsome gay man would be cured if he had sex with her. Or someone saying someone of the opposite sex would be better off if only they got laid.

  • Steve67

    And how do you know she has not stopped committing adultery? And the bible actually mentions homosexuality quite a few more times than Leviticus. It condemns it several times in the new testament which is one of many reasons why your predictable reference to shellfish laws (a classic liberal tactic that has been refuted countless times but they keep dragging out) The fiber and shellfish laws are among are dealt with in Colossians where Paul refers to them saying we are no longer to judge according to festivals, new moons, sabbaths etc. It’s also addressed in acts, and by Jesus Himself when He confronts the pharisees for trying to condemn the disciples for not washing their hands. Later Jesus also affirms one man and one woman as God’s intended design for marriage and refers to adultery as sin. So it’s clear that the moral law still applies while the ceremonial laws (which the shellfish and fabric laws were part of) are no longer binding and were never given to gentiles anyway. So what you no doubt thought would be a clever way to expose Ms Davis as a hypocrite actually only exposes your ignorance of the bible.

    And as far as divorce. Jesus Himself said that divorce was permitted because of hardness of man’s heart. When someone who has been through a divorce gets a Christian marriage there will typically be some sort of process of reconciliation and closure with the former spouse expected to be sought out if it hasn’t already.

    And you accuse her of being judgemental and yet you continue to make all these presumptions about her. For all you know her former spouse was abusive.

    You know nothing about this woman other than what you see in the news and yet you are making completely baseless assumptions about her motives. Deny it all you want but that is prejudice, that is judging and that makes you a hypocrite.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Handy Graph I see you edited your original post where you wrote ‘You care what Christians think, because you are on a Christian blog. That’s the achilles heel – you care what Christians think, but Christians don’t care what gays think.’

    Why couldn’t a Christian care what a gay person think? I care to read what any one posts here on this Patheos blog simply because I am interested in how and why people think the way they do.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Forple, my family has been here since the 1600’s and I would love to see documentation that until the 1960’s Christianity WAS the unofficial American Religion. Thanks.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Steve67 when Gavin Newson now our Lt Governor was told by the court to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples he did what the court said.

  • forple

    Excelsior “. She is using the bible to deny gay people the right to marry by saying it’s against god’s will, .”????? First of all, there is no such thing as “gay people”. Secondly, no one, NO ONE, is denying anyone the right to marry. There are certain rules and just common sense aspects that people comply with to get a wedding license. For example, in 1957 a singer by the name of Jerry Lewis married his 13 year old cousin, perfectly legal at the time, but there was enough of a “yuck factor” to force a change in the rules. Fast forward to today, any body, ANYBODY, can go out, find someone of the opposite sex, get married. No one will have a problem.

  • Cheryl D Millard

    Although I have provided a portion of the Establishment Clause below, please reread the 1st Amendment along with the Establishment Clause in its entirety.

    The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
    Also the below article regarding the founding fathers and secularism may prove enlightening and put to rest some of your misconceptions regarding history although not in the way you may think.

    http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-america-review/volume-2/secular-government/

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Sreve67 And how do we know she has not stopped committing adultery? Try Romans 7:3 -‘ So then if, while [her] first husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress’.

    Jesus was an observant kosher food Jew and he never condoned eating non kosher did he? Paul may have but he was not GOD, he was NOT Jesus any more than the Pope is God or Jesus. You ask how do we know she has not stopped committing adultery? Wouldn’t these verses apply here?

    Matthew 19:9 ‘And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery’.

    Luke 16:18 – Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

    Matthew 5:32 – But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

    1 Corinthians 7:11 – But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

    Romans 7:3 – So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.

    And remember she has been married four times. In 2009, Davis remarried her SECOND husband, Joe Davis. They remain wed. BUT according to the Bible she is still committing adultery since she is NOT reconciled to her FIRST husband.

    And she is an Apostolic Christian and they state:Self-denial, separation from sin and unfruitful works, and nonconformity to worldliness are integral parts of the Christian walk of life and they lead to a life of peace and joy. And they teach what is written in Romans 7:3. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.

    Her Apostolic Christian church teaches these Biblical verses and how one should live.
    http://www.atseminary.com/marriage-divorce–remarriage.html

  • jrb16915

    She is a hypocrite because she is willing to take a check from the same state she says is immoral for allowing homosexuals to marry . She is willing to take her paycheck and let someone else issue the licenses.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Jrb16915 you just brought up an interesting situation. She was shown on various news outlets telling the two men who wanted a marriage license that she could not issue one and then she told them to go to another county.

    Isn’t telling them where they can get a license a tad like a anti abortion doctor telling a woman who wants one that he/she will not preform one but they will tell her who will???????

    If you consider something a sin would you tell them where to do the sin if you did not want to take part in the sin?????

  • Jordan Grey (Jack)

    The purpose of pointing out hypocrisy on the part of Kim Davis isn’t to illustrate a difference between her actions and her beliefs; it’s to illustrate a difference between her beliefs and scripture. If you only apply biblical law in situations where it conveniently aligns with your political leanings, your concerns aren’t religious; you’re just using religion’s undeserved status as being above criticism to try to put your personal worldview out of reach of criticism.

  • Michael Armstrong

    Are you kidding – did you even look up the definition of hypocrite? Oh so she was “saved” and now that makes her suddenly capable to make marriage related decisions for others (like she is some kind of marriage pro)? My best guess is God would want you to keep your noses out of other peoples business and worry about your own shit… http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

  • El Capitan

    Since your reply is a direct quote from the Wikipedia article on the Separation of church and state, I thought I would answer you with the last sentence of that article. Only I will give credit to it and not plagiarize! “However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.”
    [

  • El Capitan

    PS. I am an American citizen and have a degree in history, so bring on the debate.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    I note you did not answer, is there not something similar in the country you live in?

  • ken

    Her best defense is “I was born this way.” It makes just as much sense as “I was born gay and you can’t change me.”

    If some eleven-year-old boy told his teacher, “I think I’m attracted to men, but I’m not sure this feels right.” You can get he would get bombarded with “You just be TRUE to who you are, that’s the important thing, be true to your real nature!”

    Hey, if homosexuals can tell us they’re born that way (which can’t be proven) and that being true to yourself is a good thing (also can’t be proven), why can’t the rest of us use that excuse? I mean, we’ve been browbeaten with “Equality!” for the past year, we’re just like you – you know, we’re BORN THIS WAY!

  • Steve67

    And just before Jesus said whoever divorces his wife except in cases of adultery causes her to committ adultery He also said that one is guilty of adultery if they have a lustful thought. He also said that if your right hand causes you to sin you should cut it off. He also said if you even get angry at your brother you are guilty of murder. So tell me how you doing with all that? Jesus is exhorting the power and seriousness of sin and making it clear that He is the only hope for sinners and that the law cannot save us. At the end of this He recounts the two great commandments Love God and love your neighbor, which liberals love to twist to mean just be nice to people, which of course is not what Jesus is saying and we know this since He says that the law and the prophets all hang on those two commandments. By your line of reasoning anyone who has ever committed a sin is a hypocrite.

    Yes Jesus was a Jew. But if He had the same view of the law as you seem to think then explain to me why He would have talked with the Samaritan woman as He did. She would have been considered an outcast because she was a woman, a Samaritan and known to be living with a man whom she was not married to and known to have had four previous husbands. To even go anywhere near her would have been unheard of for faithful Jews. Yet by youre line of reasoning Jesus was wrong to talk with her.Granted He did not deny that it was sinful that she had four previous husbands and that her current relationship was sinful. He let her know that He knew and it convicted her. Yet while He didn’t deny her sin, He saw value in her. He had mercy on her. It’s unclear what happened but it’s clear that even after four previous marriages she could still repent. Did Jesus tell her to go back and marry her first husband? No.

    Ms Davis became a Christian after her first marriages. She has made no attempt to justify her divorces or deny that they were sinful, but she has no doubt sought forgiveness for them. Micah 7 says that when sins are forgiven it is as if they are cast to the bottom of the sea. If she has repented and sought forgiveness and received a Word of absolution; which she no doubt did when she converted and likely does on a regular basis then she is not committing adultery.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    In our family if one only applies biblical law in situations where it conveniently aligns with their political leanings, we call them cafeteria or buffet Christians where the choose which biblical teachings to follow.

  • ken

    No, gays are cowards.
    If a Muslim gave them a dirty look, they would wet themselves.

  • ken

    Sicko

  • Wayne W

    Her first (and only Godly) husband is still alive. She must return and submit to him if she wants to be right with Him. (Mathew 19)

  • Wayne W

    As long is she is with a man who is not her first husband, she is commiting adultery, according to Jesus’s teaching (Matthew 19), Jesus never did speak of homosexuality.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Christ was free of ALL sin so he could not sin when he spoke to the Samaritan woman. And tell me where he told the women in John 4 that she was free to continue sinning with the man she was not married to. Even if she had been married to him she would have been committing adultery.

    And Matthew 5:30 says’ If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.’ Stumble in the Hebrew means to continue to do the same sin over and over.

    You noted the verses about loving ones neighbor. Mark 12:31 says ‘The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than this.’
    Now as Christians lets look HARD at that verse. If I really love myself wouldn’t I want to work hard daily on the sins I find myself doing? And working hard to not repeat them is a goal, right?

    So if I am a Christian and I know that all the Bible verses I noted state very clearly that if I commit adultery or divorced because of my adultery that I am to stay unmarried? And that any marriage would be an act of adultery? I know Ms Davis became an Apostolic Christian after she married the last time which was a marriage to her second husband. (gets confusing)

    So shouldn’t they not be living together if both are serious about doing what the Bible says. After all according to Biblical law they are not even married. They are only married according to mans (government) law which is the same mans law/government she wants to deny others from partaking of because she says it’s not a Biblical law.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Ken,
    Gays are cowards? I dare you to go to Arlington National Cemetery or any military national cemetery and shout at the top of your voice ‘If there are any gays or lesbians buried here you are all cowards’.

  • Wayne W

    And in 2015 the rules have changed again. Just as Ms Davis can’t give permits to child brides, even if her religion permits it, she can’t deny a license to those who qualify just because her religion does not permit it. Imagine if the instead of laws we just allowed all public officials to follow their religions? We’d have chaos with all the different religions that are found in the US.

  • Linda Prince Johnson

    If you read the bible you will learn that whether or not she should return to her first husband depends on the reason for which they were divorced. If her husband was an adulterer then she can forgive him if she chooses to but is not required to do so and is allowed to remarry. Since we don’t know the circumstances surrounding those marriages it would be difficult to tell her what she should do. I know several woman who were godly and fine wives whose husbands were repeatedly unfaithful. If that is Kim Davis’ situation she is a poor judge of character but not a sinner.

  • Linda Prince Johnson

    Actually that’s not what the Bible says about the sins of other at all. Christians are require to help sinners bring themselves back into the right way. As a matter of fact she would be sinning if she didn’t point out what someone was doing wrong as well as others would be sinning if they didn’t point out her sin. In order to do this however one must actually KNOW Kim Davis and not just be speculating based on biased media reports about what her situation is.

  • Linda Prince Johnson

    If you believe the Bible teachers it’s okay for two men or two women to marry I wish I could be standing beside you when you meet God because that is going to be interesting.

  • Linda Prince Johnson

    There are scriptural reasons for divorce but since Matthew 19 is the only verse you know you would be ignorant of that fact.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    She committed adultery when married to husband #1 which resulted in her getting pregnant. She divorced #1 and married the man she had committed adultery with. Then she divorced him and married #3 whom she divorced so she could remarry #2. So Linda Prince Johnson what do you think now???

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    And what if we know what we know about Ms. Davis is because Mathew Staver, who is currently serving as head legal counsel for Davis has given lengthy interviews on various conservative radio shows?

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Ahhh but the Bible says we will be judged by what we took part in. Just because I think the government has the right to do something does not mean I am supposed to do something if as a Christian I believe it would be a sin. In fact I am told to flee such situations.

    If I work for the government and they tell me to do something that is contrary to my Christian faith I would leave the job and dust the government dirt off my shoes as I left the building. In fact my husband left a well paying job because of legal but unethical behavior required.. 50% drop in pay.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Linda Prince Johnson Wayne W at least noted a Biblical verse, whereas you noted none and only gave an unkind response. Here are a few more verses aside from Matthew 19.
    1 Corinthians 7:10-17 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. …

    Matthew 5:31“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    How about Mark 10:2-12 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” What did Moses command. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away. It was because your hearts were hard3 that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.

    Interestingly since she committed adultery when married to husband #1 and got pregnant #1 husband had a right to divorce her based on Matthew 19 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

  • forple

    Wayne W So just where do we draw the line as to who can get married and who can’t? This 20 year old woman wants to marry her dad, these two cousins want to get married, they are all consenting adults, so can we deny them the right to get married?. No religion involved here, just intelligent thought, and common sense. There was a time when this country was sane, the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, was recognized as the cornerstone of a healthy growing society. Now it is a joke. Two guys, whose sole commonality is the way they choose to engage in sexual intercourse, for whatever reason, want to get married, hey go right ahead. NO ONE is asking is this really good for society?

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    If you want to see who has made a mockery out of marriage, even amongst conservatives, one need only look at the divorce rate in the last 50 years!

    Maybe if heterosexuals and especially Christians were a better example marriage wouldn’t have evolved into something that is shallow and seen more as a hobby than a covenant one makes with the Lord.

    When was the last time you heard a blunt sermon on the sin of divorce? In the last ten years I have heard 2!! Why no such sermons? Maybe because the faces the pastor is looking out on are guilty of that sin. Heck when was the last time you heard a sermon on greed or gluttony?

    In the last ten years I have heard 4 on gluttony and those were connected to an upcoming health and fitness class being offered where few people attended.

  • forple

    Cheryl D Millard Read you article and found it a rather terrifying piece of revisionist history. Terrifying because there are people who might actually believe it is true. What is amusing about the first amendment and the whole “wall of separation of church an state” thing is that the individuals who actually wrote the constitution di not know what was actually in it, nobody did until the sixties. 12 of the original 13 states used taxpayer dollars to fund certain churches in their states, a practice that continued until the 1800s, when the states put an end to that practice. When Thomas Jefferson was president, one of the largest expenditures he signed off on was to purchase Bibles to be used in public schools.

  • Steve67

    “And tell me where he told the women in John 4 that she was free to continue sinning with the man she was not married to.”

    I never said He did say that. WHat part of “It’s unclear what happened” did you not understand? What is clear is that He had mercy on her, which nobody else likely had. What was clear was that her encounter with Jesus changed her and made her go and tell others about Him. I am aware what stumble means in Greek (Yeah see actually it would have been Greek and not Hebrew since it was New Testament). I am aware that it’s sinning over and over again. Interesting that you try to come up with some convoluted way to accuse her of being unrepentant and yet somehow the two living in a homosexual relationship (which the blble clearly condemns) somehow is not problematic for you. Somehow that;’s not unrepentant. You clearly do not understand the nature of repentance and forgiveness.

    As far as whether she should be living with her current husband. OK let me explain this to you again. She repented when she converted. Her sins were forgiven. Micah 7 says that God’s forgiveness is as if our sins are tossed to the bottom of the ocean. In other words it’s as if they didn’t exist. When you are forgiven you are wiped clean. It’s as if her divorces and marriages never happened. Obviously if she were repeatledly getting married after becoming a Christian and just using forgiveness as a justification then that would be a problem and she would indeed be a hypocrite. And I freely admit this is one area where the church has been far too lenient. But in her case, she has been married once since converting and is still married.

  • Steve67

    How do you know Jesus never spoke of homosexuality? You are aware that the Gospels are not exhaustive biographies right? And actually Jesus spoke of marriage in a way that defintely addresses homosexuality in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 where He affirmed one man and one woman as God’s only design for marriage. And if you knew Christian doctrine then you might understand that actually the whole Bible is considered the Word of God and Jesus is the Word made flesh, So really the whole bible can be thought as Jesus words.

  • forple

    Daniel Webster

    U. S. SENATOR; SECRETARY OF STATE; “DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”

    [T]he Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.
    James Madison

    SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECRETARY OF STATE; FOURTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

    A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. Thomas Jefferson

    SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; DIPLOMAT; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF STATE; THIRD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

    The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

    The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

    I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

    I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. John Hancock

    SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement.

    He called on the entire state to pray “that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    IF the two homosexuals were claiming to be Christian and were living in sin and wanted to have me approve of that I would NOT. But I also do not approve of a Christian man and woman living together sans marriage.

    As a widow I have refused to even accept an invite from a man who is divorced since the ones who have asked me out were Christians when they divorced.

    My late husband and I were pretty walk the talk when it came to living a Christ based lifestyle. We refused to work for the government and homeschooled because we felt the public schools undermined our Christian values.

    Sadly we have way to many Christians who denounce the government yet partake of what the government offers. But the Bible warned of this.

  • Bellz Webster

    Driving is not in their religious book, it was just a rule that some Imans made up to stop women from “crushing’ their ovaries. The rule they brought in was for riding a bike as well.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Yes, I know most of the founding fathers were Christian including William Livingston an ancestor of ours. But there is nothing in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, that mention Christ or Christianity.

    Yes, this is a nation based on Judea Christian values. But it is also a nation built on freedom for the individual. Remember people escaped the monarchy of England for the freedom America would offer.

    The Declaration of Independence states We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ Although this was only if you were a white male with property or the widow of a white property owner

  • Cheryl D Millard

    Terrifying piece of revisionist history? Please by all means provide objective evidence to the contrary that supports your various claims in your response to me.

    The
    Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state so that
    anyone may seek goods and services without the fear of arbitrary and discriminatory prejudices based on biases toward race, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, etc.
    Davis
    cannot allow her religious beliefs to dictate how she performs her job
    regardless of her personal opinion. People who need various services
    provided by her office have a reasonable expectation to fair and
    equitable treatment and should not be subjected to arbitrary biases,
    when seeking those goods and services.

    This
    has nothing to do with a persons freedom of speech and freedom to
    worship, pray or proselytize where they please whether it be in the
    privacy in ones
    home, church or in public, etc.

  • She’s a hypocrite because she never stopped issuing all marriage licenses before for any of the same things she did, like divorce, remarriage, and remarrying a former husband after marrying another man, which is an abomination in the Bible (Deut. 24:1-4). It can’t be said that she’s for “traditional” marriage, she’s just anti-gay. http://politicalmoll.com/kim-davis-is-not-a-christian-martyr-shes-just-anti-gay/

  • Cheryl D Millard

    Terrifying revisionist history? Then please provide objective evidence that supports your accusations, you must meet the burden of proof.
    Furthermore the article I provided had both citations as well as attributions from peers, this objective evidence supported the written article.

    The Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state so that anyone may seek goods and services
    without the fear of arbitrary and discriminatory prejudices based on biases toward race, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, etc.Davis cannot allow her religious beliefs to dictate how she performs her job regardless of her personal opinion. People who need various services provided by her office have a reasonable expectation to fair and equitable treatment and should not be subjected to arbitrary biases, when seeking those goods and services.

    This has nothing to do with a persons freedom of speech and freedom to worship, pray or proselytize where they please whether it be in the privacy in ones home, church or in public, etc.
    Like I said before, “Everyone, regardless of religion, disability or sexual preferences has a reasonable
    expectation to fair and equitable treatment and should not be subjected to arbitrary biases, when seeking
    goods and services.”
    So forple in the future by all means please do your research, present objective evidence that will support your claim. .

  • Cheryl D Millard

    Very good reasoning and logic.

  • Cheryl D Millard

    Atheists are usually quite versed in the various worlds religions including Christianity. But instead of quoting fallacious archaic verse and a lack of reasoning that will undermine the logic of their claims. we use logic,fact and empirical evidence to support our arguments.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Actually for the record Thomas Jefferson did not like the Baptists, yet he disliked even more the fact that in the colonies all the residents paid taxes that ONLY went to support the religious churches and schools of the majority, which meant the taxes paid by the Baptists were supporting NON Baptist churches and schools. Thus the separation of church and state became law.

    So he helped word the guarantee that government could make no law favoring one religion/denomination over another. But business owners who were protestant, as an example, could still choose not to do business with people of another denomination, with Catholics, Quakers etc

  • Cheryl

    “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Luke 16:18

    It’s right there in the book she claims to follow. She, according to her own rules, is still sinning. Therefore she’s a hypocrite.

  • Cheryl

    What you’re doing, Steve, is clutching at straws to dismiss her sin, while hanging on to the ‘gays are sinners’ concept (I’d love to see as many quotes on that as people have found on adultery). That is evidence alone that this is all about prejudice and not faith. I don’t think I need say any more. I’ll let your actions speak for themselves.

    For me, I don’t care how many times a woman is married. That’s her business. Until she makes it her business to deny others what she has enjoyed.

  • Michael Armstrong

    So do you also believe child molesters that find god would make good baby sitters? Or are you also a Hypocrite?

  • Michael Armstrong

    “Though shall not kill” – now many of you right wing fanatics own hand guns? We all know hand guns are made for killing so doesn’t that make you all hypocrites?

  • Michael Armstrong

    and a born again child molester that claims to have found god would make a good babysitter for your grandkids?

  • TheMarsCydonia

    You call them cafeteria christians? Since I don’t see picking and choosing as a distinction from one group to another I just call them christians.

  • Brian Bowen

    Right, because all those people buried there are gay.
    Jeez.

  • Brian Bowen

    One of the vermin from JoeMyGod.

  • Jo

    She’s a hypocrite because SHE claims to follow the christian god’s law. I do not care if she held orgies day & night. If you are going to publicly claim religious exemption, you’d best be following said religion.

  • Diaris

    I am so glad you brought up that subject. I loathe gun violence in any form.

    Here’s some data on gun violence. I think it’s always important in any discussion of social issues to rely on hard data.

    Here’s a list of serial killers. The killers are all gay men.

    Jeffrey Dahmer, murdered and dismembered at least 17 males, 1978-1991
    John Wayne Gacy, murdered 33 boys and young men, 1972-78
    William Bonin, the Freeway Killer in California, raped, tortured, and murdered at least 21 young men and boys 1979-80
    Joseph E. Duncan III, raped at least 17 males, murdered 3, 1998-2005
    Larry Eyler, the Interstate Killer, 23 males, 1982-84
    Andrew Cunanan, murdered 5 (including Gianni Versace), 1997
    Randy Steven Kraft, murdered 65, 1971-83, the “Score Card Killer”
    Patrick Kearney, murdered at least 28 (possibly as many as 43), 1968-77
    Wayne Williams, murdered at least 23, 1979-81
    Dean Corll, David Brooks, and Elmer Henley, murdered at least 278 1970-73
    Juan Corona, murdered 27, 1971
    Vaughn Greenwood, murdered at least 11, 1974-75, the “Skid Row Slasher”
    Michael Terry, 6 murdered, 1985-86

    Also: Gay men who murdered straights:
    Vester Flanagan, August 26, 2015, murdered 2, injured 1
    Donald Harvey, the “Angel of Death,” murdered at least 25, 1970-71, but claims to have murdered more than 87 people, mostly by poisoning. He also poisoned his male lover, and infected some hospital patients with hepatitis B and HIV.
    Michael Swango, murdered at least 35, 1983-97, “Doctor of Death”
    The two DC snipers were homosexual lovers, and together they killed ten people and injured 3 more.

    Funny, now that I look at that list of killers, I don’t see ONE person on there who has been identified as a Christian or a right-winger.

    So the facts seem to indicate that even though right-wingers own guns, it’s the the gays who actually KILL people.

    Btw, you illiterate: It’s “Thou shalt not kill,” not “Though shalt not kill.” Learn to read and write.

  • plains-rabbit

    Get a haircut.
    Get a life.
    Stop using profanity, it just proves you have a limited vocabulary and mind.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Michael Armstrong, that a poor analogy. First off just because someone owns a legal firearm doesn’t equate to being a killer. And the commandment says ‘Thou shalt not commit murder’. Murder requires some type of thought and is illegal. It does not say ‘Thou shalt not kill’.

    One is permitted self defense. Luke 22:35-39 even says ‘and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.’ Exodus 22:2-3 ‘If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed’

  • guadalupelavaca

    I know that English is my second language…but even I know what hypocrite means. And Davis is the poster child. Being a woman I won’t slut shame her, but really Kim, do something with your appearance! If she came to my work looking like she does I would send her home. None of the women in my office look sloppy like she does.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Brian Bowen try reading what I actually wrote which was ‘If there are any gays or lesbians buried here you are all cowards’. Ken had noted ‘gas are cowards’, which is what I was responding to.

    And we know there are gays from WW2, Viet Nam buried there because their family members have said so. Men who fought and died in war.

  • guadalupelavaca

    The bible does not say “kill.” its thou shalt not commit murder, which is the “unlawful” killing of a human being. Self defense is allowed.

  • guadalupelavaca

    I have a concealed carry permit. I live in LA. I don’t go anywhere without it. I think what would have been the outcome if I had been sitting in that theater in Colorado. (BTW, that theater was listed as a gun free zone.)

    Libs love to talk about gun murders, but never about the number of times good citizens like me prevented a murder with a firearm.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    guadalupelavaca STOP it!! Ms. Davis dresses in a simple plain way, based on what her church teaches. We have plain dress Christian friends in TN, KY and all the women dress much like Mennonites as does Ms. Davis.

    So please do not body/dress shame Ms. Davis. One can disagree with what she did, but do not make unkind comments about her dress.

  • guadalupelavaca

    She’s a government official dealing with the public. There are hundreds of female court clerks in my courthouse. All of them can seem to dress in a way that is professional. And the men don’t have it any easier. They are required to wear suits. In fact, one day a male attorney forgot his suit jacket and the judge wouldn’t let him inside the courtroom. What Kim wears off duty is her own business, but at work she can do better. She doesn’t meet my standard at my business. I would send her home.

  • Scott Terry Green

    Ms. Davis I believe is like the other some 90% of Christians who have NEVER read the Bible. Shes ignorant of her own religion and in very good company. She’s in no position to not do her job. She will hopefully wake up in jail.

  • forple

    Against a prevailing view that eighteenth-century Americans had not perpetuated the first settlers’ passionate commitment to their faith, scholars now identify a high level of religious energy in colonies after 1700. According to one expert, religion was in the “ascension rather than the declension”; another sees a “rising vitality in religious life” from 1700 onward; a third finds religion in many parts of the colonies in a state of “feverish growth.” Figures on church attendance and church formation support these opinions. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace.

  • Scott Terry Green

    You forgot she committed ADULTERY!

  • Scott Terry Green

    What proves gays are born that way is the FACT that over 1,000 animal species have been observed as homosexual. Bison for example.

  • Cyclops

    Really, where do you get she’s never read the bible? You have been following her all of her life? Just because her interpretation is different than yours, doesn’t mean that she’s never read the bible.

  • Cyclops

    You know you are so right. I have sinned. I married a divorced person. For this reason, I can’t tell anyone murder is wrong

  • guadalupelavaca

    I know people criticize Christians for not “reading the bible” as though that is some sort of flaw. You don’t need to read the whole thing to be a good Christian. You just have know about the relevant sections. Did you know that for most of Christianity people didn’t read the bible? People reading the bible themselves is a relatively modern invention.

    For most of western history the majority of the populace were illiterate. Even many kings couldn’t read. The only people who could read were the priests. And even if a person could read, they couldn’t read latin, which is what the bible was written in. In fact, it wasn’t until the 16th century that a translation of the bible into the local language was made legal. Prior to that is was punishable with death.

    Davis is hypocrite because she doesn’t follow the relevant sections of the bible, not because she didn’t read the whole thing.

  • guadalupelavaca

    No, you can tell people murder is wrong, but you can’t commit murder and justify it because the bible says it’s ok.

    If Davis was giving out the marriage licenses and TELLING gays that homosexuality was a sin, she wouldn’t be in jail now. The problem is that she is breaking the law.

  • Evan Hurst

    Another gay guy full of love and tolerance.

    You people are so sunny and bubbly, you sure brighten up a room.

  • Evan Hurst

    You’re such a good Christian, criticizing her appearance. Where’s that chapter and verse that tell you to judge and criticize people?

  • Evan Hurst

    Moron, you think all gun owners kill people?
    What cave are you living in?

  • Evan Hurst

    Tell you what, science whiz:
    Go find a birth certificate that identifies a newborn as “gay.”

    Take your time. You people are as ignorant of science as you are of religion. Ignorance and conceit are a bang-up combination.

  • Evan Hurst

    My, such drama queens.

    “Sad, that. Tragic.”

    Why don’t you talk about all the gays who infect each other with AIDS. That’s pretty sad. Christians don’t give you AIDS – you kill each other with AIDS. You don’t like each other much, because nice people don’t kill people with AIDS.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    90% of the Christians you know Scott Terry Green or all Christians? And if all then please provide reliable data that proves the 90% is correct.

  • Michael Armstrong

    blow me ass wipe

  • guadalupelavaca

    I do that everyday. We have a dress code in my office. The court house has a dress code. Most businesses have dress codes. Where have you been Evan? Under a rock? Yes, when an employee comes to work I judge them. Men must wear suits. Facial hair is not allowed. Hair must be above the collar. The ladies must wear appropriate attire. Davis does not comply and I would “judge” her and send her home. When a client comes to our office I don’t want him to judge us and think we are a sloppy law firm.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Interestingly the women I have seen working in the license/record division in San Francisco as well as here in Calaveras County dress pretty casual. And in San Francisco some not as modestly dressed as Ms. Davis.

    And the license/record division is NOT in the court house where attorneys appearing before a judge are required to have a jacket if male and if female cannot wear jeans t-shirt etc.

  • guadalupelavaca

    I’ve been criticized above for being critical of Davis’ appearance. Armstrong looks like a slob.

  • guadalupelavaca

    Are you not hearing me? SHE IS AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. I expect better. If you don’t fine. But get off my case. I have higher standards than you.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Your argument is flawed and here is why. Genitalia is not what decides ones sexual orientation. Orientation is brain based. And no birth certificate here in the states lists religion either, since religion is a choice and not something we are born with.

    Secondly roughly 1 out of every 1500-200 babies born are intersexed. Thus the baby might be born appearing to be female on the outside, but having mostly male anatomy on the inside. Or a baby may have genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types, such as a girl born with a noticeably large clitoris that looks like a penis, or lacking a vaginal opening, or a boy born with a notably small penis, or with a scrotum that divided so that it has formed more like labia. A basic biology class in college teaches this.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Evan Hurst You sure make it hard for those of us who identify as conservative Christians when you make flawed and hateful comments like you just did.

    Factually speaking its heterosexuals and sadly older heterosexuals age 60+ who make up the groups with HIV and STD’s. And in 2015 there are few Americans even dying from complications from HIV/AIDS.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    Please, never become a person with any kind of serious responsabilities. Someone that proudly misses the mark by miles like you just did could really hurt somebody.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    Homosexuals do not give AIDS, God does.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    So get off my case = shut up and leave me alone? How would that go over in court if your said that to a judge?

    Good god our Governor is an elected official here in California yet he posts photos on his Facebook page, dressed sans tie and jacket. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti an elected official has had photos taken in his office dressed casually. And President Obama has been called out for having photos taken in the Oval Office sans tie, jacket.

    And you sound elitist with snarky comments like ‘I have higher standards than you’.

  • guadalupelavaca

    Are you a judge? Are we in court?

    You have trouble hearing me. I have never seen Brown dressed like a slob. I never criticized “casual.” The dress code for females in my office is actually on the casual side. They can’t be sloppy. Some firms have casual friday, which usually turns out to be “dress like shit Friday.” Why are you defending Davis, do you dress like her too?

  • guadalupelavaca

    Sartorial standards.

  • lorasinger

    It probably has something to do with “I don’t like what YOU are doing sexually because the bible says it’s wrong” and all the while “I will ignore what I did sexually EVEN though the bible also says THAT is wrong” – Something along the lines of “He who is without sin can cast the first stone”. Kim Davis shouldn’t have stones.

  • lorasinger

    Kim Davis clones amount to about 30% of the Christian body in the USA and 10% in Canada. They give the same responses, quote the same “support” verses with the same inherent misinterpretations in many cases, practice the same condescension and demand the same privilege. Yes, I think that each one is like the other ones when you are talking about fundamentalists.

  • lorasinger

    “You don’t need to read the whole thing to be a good Christian.”

    You need to read it in context but when fundamentalists quote, most often they’ve done absolutely no background study outside of what they memorize coming from their preachers.

  • guadalupelavaca

    She says: It isn’t hypocritical to fail to live up to your own moral standards.

    That is true, but she doesn’t understand that hypocrisy is telling people not to do something, but then doing it yourself. Its not hypocritical for a former alcoholic to tell people to stop drinking, but it is if hes doing it while drinking a cocktail at the same time.

  • Emyth

    No, Ms. Davis is a hypocrite because she’s forcing others to live up to her private, personal religious standards, when she doesn’t do so herself… This may be an extension of the personal, individual usage of “hypocrite” into the social, interpersonal realm… But it isn’t illegitimate… That’s the way language works: Words mean what society uses them to mean.

    You may wish to ask yourself what skin you have in this game, Ms. French… Why are you so invested in lecturing all of us who are admonishing Ms. Davis for her lack of charity? Ask yourself “What would Jesus say to someone who is doing what Ms Davis is doing?” (Remember, this is the man who said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that which is God’s…”

    Ms. Davis has worked for Caesar… She has NOT done what Caesar requires… She should have resigned immediately rather than cause the trouble she’s caused…

    And you? You are wagging your finger at the wrong folk…

  • Cyclops

    Too late. 🙂 I’m already a person with serious responsibilities, and I have been for years. So far, no one injured. Yay me.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    Well, if this isn’t a miracle…

  • Hilary

    Basically this shows the bitter frustration between straight Christians who claim to live by their biblical code but fail and yet oppose same sex marriage. You guys will bend the rules for the human needs for companionship for straight people, but not for gay people. When it is your needs, for divorce, or remarriage for love after a failed fist marriage that didn’t include adultery, or any sexual or romantic relationship outside of your strict biblical marriage, you might wring your hands but that’s it.

    Kim Davis didn’t put her foot down for straight people coming for a marriage license for their 2nd or 3rd marriage. She didn’t check about adultery, or pre-marrital sex, or contraception. She didn’t refuse licenses to athiests, or a Christian marrying a non-Christian. All of those things are sins according to her biblical beliefs, but they are still sins of straight people. Sins of straight people might get hand wringing at church but they still get legal licenses. Their sins weren’t worth going to jail for standing up against.

    But the ‘sins’ of same sex couples are. The emotional needs of a straight couple on their third marriage using contraception, negotiable, give them a marriage licensce. The emotional needs of a same sex couple for love, companionship, and legal recognition of their relationship, one they intend to make last a lifetime? That’s worth going to jail for refusing a legal lisensce. But straight people who are equally breaking biblical marriage laws, they get a pass.

    Hypocrite.

  • Excelsior

    If you’re not going to be serious then I’m not paying any attention to you. Be gone troll.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Actually she was not issuing ANY marriage licenses so to be fair she was treating ALL couples who came to apply for a license the same.

    And she directed couples to other counties nearby. Personally I hope more states simply get out of the marriage business. PERIOD!

  • forple

    Excelsior I was being serious, but unfortunately reality can be uncomfortable for people like you living in the fantasy world in your mind

  • forple

    Beth Grant DeRoos

    Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

    Marriage is the building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public, not just private, purposes. Marriage is a unique relationship; it brings together sexually complementary spouses, in a monogamous relationship, where they pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity.

    For decades, marriage has been weakened by our culture of convenience. This demotes marriage to little more than emotional intensity or legal privileges. We should all remember that marriage is about the needs of children rather than the desires of adults. ‘ she has processed marriage licenses for people in her community who are known to be serial adulterers, or are known to be getting married for the wrong reasons would she not be a hypocrite? ” such marriages do not change the basic concept of marriage, homosexual marriage does which is why it is so wrong and so destructive to society as a whole
    .

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Having taken a law class on marriage law at Stanford University where the history of marriage was taught, marriage was about males protecting their material property. T
    hus it has been for centuries based on the human need/want of the male. Especially from illegitimate offspring because upon death the property would go to the oldest rightful heir.

    And until around forty years ago based on this ownership rule when a couple married they would be pronounced man and wife not husband and wife, since man and white denoted a form of ownership of the woman. It wasn’t until the 80’s that wives in all the states could have credit in their own name. Could buy a home, car etc in their own name.
    Going back to Biblical times the tribes had men with many wives because many wives mean many children which equated to both wealth and free labour and the acquisition of more property since when a male married the wives family paid a dowry which meant more wealth for the tribal clan.

    And had heterosexuals not cheapened marriage with no fault divorce and easy divorce we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today.

  • TRUTH IS! “Whoever would be a friend of this world is the enemy of Our FATHER and GOD”! (James 4:4)

    Why?

    “Our FATHER and GOD sent His Only Begotten Son so that the world through Him might be saved”! (John 3:16)

    And what did those of this world and religion’s way do?

    They crucified The Only Begotten Son of GOD!

    So it is, “the WHOLE world (not just a portion) IS under the control of the evil one”……. (I John 5:19; 2:15-17, II Corinthians 4:4)

    Yet, thankfully that which IS of The TRUTH Will Always Rise Again!

    And TRUTH IS, it is better to be despised, than to be spoken well of, by those bound in the chains of “strong delusion” that are of this evil world and/or religion’s way……. (II Thessalonians 2:10-13, John 7:7, James 1:27 reveals an Active Faith)

    “Come out from among them and be separate”!

  • Scott Terry Green

    Friend, believe it or not, some people are ACTUALLY born gay. It’s scientifically proven. Did you know that bison are homosexuals? Over 1,000 animals are. It’s perfectly NATURAL.

  • forple

    Beth Grant DeRoos

    Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

    Marriage is the building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public, not just private, purposes. Marriage is a unique relationship; it brings together sexually complementary spouses, in a monogamous relationship, where they pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Yes no fault divorce and easy divorce contributed to the destruction of marriage as did generous welfare programs whose primary purpose was not to actually assist, but to get fathers out of the home. Radical , man hating feminism (a women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle) also has contributed. As has abortion. As had the general moral decline of our culture. The question remains, why contribute to the damage with homosexual marriage?

  • Scott Terry Green

    Friend, believe it or not, some people are ACTUALLY born gay. It’s scientifically proven. Did you know that bison are homosexuals? Over 1,000 animals are. It’s perfectly NATURAL. It’s just that simple.

  • forple

    Scott Terry Green First of all, there is NO, credible, verifiable evidence even suggesting a biological origin for homosexuality. Second, where in the world did you get the figure that there are 1000 species of animals are homosexual? Read up on estrus, might find it informative

  • forple

    “Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears”.” Though, in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend.” The above is from Washington’s farewell address. You will notice in many writings from that time, they DO NOT mention Jesus or God directly, but refer to him as the Creator, and other terms. There was no doubt in the minds of Washington’s contemporaries pertaining to Washington’s faith.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Scott Terry Green you cannot toss out statements like ‘ people are ACTUALLY born gay. It’s scientifically proven’ without noting where this proven fact can be found/

    One study done by former Salk Institute researcher Simon LeVay. in ’91 proved to be questionable. And NO scientific research has ever been presented in a court of law to prove that people are born gay as far as I know.

    And humans are different from other species because we can think, reason, choose positive or negative choices using various criteria. Bison and other animals cannot.

  • Diaris

    Tsk tsk, now that’s not very ladylike.

  • Diaris

    Nope, you’ve been infecting each other for 30 year.
    Own up to it.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    Ok, you’re right, I admit it, you are delusional.

  • If Ms. Davis has indeed seen the light and is taking a stand for God’s standards of sexuality, I sure hope she’s applying the same standard to straight people who are adulterers, divorcees, cheaters, and philanderers and refusing marriage licenses to them as well based on what Jesus said about divorce.

    Oh wait, no. Of course not. Because that would require straight Christians to take a good look at their own double standards and recognise their shameless cherry-picking.

    Hypocrites.

  • Michael Armstrong

    your mom said the same thing when I banged her with your dildo

  • Scott Terry Green

    Friend, that could be true. However, statistically, it’s probably not. She doesn’t act like a person who’s read the bible for sure.

  • Scott Terry Green

    Friend, I read it somewhere. Don’t remember where. You Google it if you want the research. I believe it. Christians are overwhelmingly ignorant not only about the bible but science and the world at large as well. Why is it that most scientists are atheists? Believers are largely uneducated. It’s a FACT.

  • Scott Terry Green

    I agree mostly friend. If you claim as a christian that the bible is god’s way to telling you how to live, you damn well ought to have read it. I have conversations frequently with christians who don’t know it at all. Just like Trump.

  • Can you please make clear what this collection of bible verses has to do with the topic under discussion? Because I don’t see the connection.

  • Frank

    There is no way to know if an adulterer, a cheater or a philanderer is such or has not received forgiveness for their sin. It’s clear that if two people of the same sex want to get married, they have not.

  • Ah, Frank…

    So good to see you up to your old tricks.

    Why don’t you just admit that you oppose gay people getting married because you’re squicked out by the idea of them having sex together?

  • Frank

    Can’t respond intelligently I see.

  • Not sure. But I’m sure she can find it. Christians love to cherry pick from that book of theirs.

  • I’ve tried that. It’s difficult to have an intelligent discussion with a troll who refuses to adhere to logical concepts, or recognize when they commit logical fallacies.

  • Religion is a choice. Who you’re attracted to is not.

  • Frank

    Thank for proving my point.

  • Did I use too many big words for you?

  • Frank

    Thanks for continuing to prove me correct.

  • I don’t mind feeding trolls occasionally. Even trolls have feelings.

  • Frank

    Aww how cute.

    Thanks for your continued support!

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Scotte Terry Green it was a Pew Research study that found
    atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

    Local pastors took note and were dismayed at how little their congregations knew, which was more like they were warming the seats and not actually learning any thing.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    thekingscrier Ahhh but being attracted to and acting on the attraction are two different things. One can be attracted to someone else’s spouse, a child, yet should not act on the attraction. This is key. It’s as much a choice as the religion we choose, in my view. It’s call free will.

  • D. Grace Rose

    1: I hate to use this argument, but it’s true: She started it. She declared that she had a moral and legal right to decide the validity of the relationships coming into her office. On a personal level, I don’t give a crap how many men she’s slept with/married/divorced. That is her personal business and in the course of normal life I would not have anything to say about it, just as I wouldn’t say anything about a drug abuser who became a counselor as part of their recovery. But I think we can all agree that it is hypocritical for an alcoholic to become a convenience store clerk and then spend her/his work shift refusing to sell alcohol because they can’t drink anymore. That is what Davis has done.

    2: Please see point one, as your points one and two are essentially the same.

    3: ‘Public virtue/private vice’ — How is that not *exactly* what Davis has done? She didn’t tell a little white lie. She set herself up as the moral and legal monitor for her community. Just as I hold pastors, priests, and all clergy-related individuals to a higher moral standard, so I would hold Davis.

  • Scott Terry Green

    I remember thanks Beth.

  • Gary Whiteman

    Disgusting fat pig.

  • Gary Whiteman

    Looks like you pick a lot of high-calorie things.
    Have you ever seen your feet?

  • Gary Whiteman

    Sure are.
    Gays transmit AIDS.

  • buttercupjesus

    and 4. Her hypocrisy is choosing to pedantically flaunt her biblically sanctioned moral judgements in the case of homosexual marriage but conveniently and officially ignoring them in the cases of her oath, divorce and other technical biblical proscriptions. See 3. above: this hypocrisy is only at issue because of the public quality of her pronouncements.

  • buttercupjesus

    demonstrating that people of a particularly zealous and fundamental religious inclination have abandoned (or perhaps never possessed) the ability to engage in a cogent discussion without the crutch of their inscrutable religious gobbledygook and endlessly declaring IN ALL CAPS THAT THEIR’S IS THE ONLY TRUTH! AMEN!

  • Jon Hendry

    “When she became a Christian more recently, she decided to take God’s law more seriously”

    She was already a Christian. She was Baptist.

  • buttercupjesus

    on what is this claim of “gay guy” based?

  • Jon Hendry

    “I have never seen a single soul even suggest that her position is ridiculous because she is a woman.”

    Exactly. It’s not that she’s a woman, it’s because she’s making a big deal about gay marriage while ignoring the redwood tree in her own eye.

  • Jon Hendry

    And we’re just supposed to take her word for it that she’s a much better Apostolic Christian than she was a Baptist.

  • Jon Hendry

    “She also will not turn her back on her faith, ”

    No, she will not turn her back on her $80,000 salary. She can have all the faith she wants on her own dime. But if the taxpayers are paying her to do a job, she’d better do it according to the law, or else resign.

  • Jon Hendry

    “The Federal Government has no place in superceding State Law.”

    Er, no. That’s not how it works. The Constitution (such as the 14th amendment) supersedes state law.

  • Jon Hendry

    What benighted downstairs bible college gave you that degree in history?

  • Jon Hendry

    “Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.”

    No it isn’t. Infertile 80 year olds are allowed to get married.

  • Jon Hendry

    “She sees the signing of a marriage license to a gay couple as a sin.”

    Then she needs to resign, and give up the $80,000 a year paycheck, which is probably a lot of money in Kentucky.

  • Jon Hendry

    “If she had half a brain, she would have done exactly what the Founders of this country envisioned.”

    I really doubt the Founders would have wanted someone to have to travel a day’s ride or more to find a law-abiding government employee who would do their job, when all they want to do is exercise one of their rights.

  • Jon Hendry

    “And the Constitution of the State of Kentucky forbids gay marriage. ”

    Federal Constitution overrules state constitutions. Sorry, that’s how it works.

    If she wants to be left alone, she needs to stop stealing the taxpayer’s money.

  • Jon Hendry

    “Also, she prevented other clerks from issuing licences”

    She’s been forcing her staff to follow *her* religion, rather than their own.

    That’s a no-no. If your boss is Catholic, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or Apostolic Christian, they don’t get to make you follow their own beliefs.

  • Of course she’s a hypocrite.

    She issues licenses to heterosexual couples who have divorced and remarried for reasons other than infidelity. Jesus called remarriage “adultery” which, unlike homosexuality, is actually one of the 10 Commandments and under Old Testament law, is a death penalty offense. St. Paul said that the only moral choices are reconciliation with one’s (first) spouse or lifetime celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

    Given that anyone who applies for a marriage license must list any previous marriages and provide legal documentation that shows that their previous marriages were dissolved through divorce or death, and given that many divorce decrees list why the marriage ended (irreconcilable differences, etc.) , those who divorced for un-Biblical reasons and are preparing to carry on an adulterous relationship with someone else are pretty easy to document, yet they weren’t being turned away.

    There is no doubt she is also issuing licenses to those who follow other religions or no religion despite the fact that they break the First Commandment of following no other gods but YHWH. That can certainly be discerned by a simple question, which she is derelict in asking, if issuing civil licenses to those who may be violating God’s law (using whatever interpretation suits you) is as soul endangering is Ms. Davis says it is.

    It’s simply embarrassing to watch fellow Christians act so un-Christlike when it comes to how they treat LGBT people.

  • Jon Hendry

    Re: cakes

    I wonder why its always wedding cakes that cause problems. I’m sure lots of bakeries have made birthday cakes for gay couples, or anniversary cakes, or birthday cakes for their children. Surely those would be just as problematic – and much more frequent.

    And wedding cakes usually don’t even say anything on them which would give away that they’re for a gay wedding, whereas an anniversary cake might.

    It’s odd.

  • Jon Hendry

    Perhaps next she’ll take issue with property transfers between gay spouses.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/?tid=pm_pop_b

    Great piece in the Washington Post which is NOT a conservative newspaper.
    When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
    Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

    Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to transport alcohol, Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t want to raise flags, Sabbatarians (Jewish or Christian) who don’t want to work Saturdays, and philosophical vegetarians who don’t want to hand out hamburger coupons can take advantage of this law. Conservative Christian county clerks who don’t want to have their names listed on marriage certificates and licenses likely can, too.

    —–>Kentucky, like about 20 other states, has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statute that requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. The federal government also has a RFRA, which may apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials

    —->Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with
    Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.

    —–>So if Kim Davis does indeed go through the state courts, and ask for a modest exemption under the state RFRA — simply to allow her to issue marriage licenses (opposite-sex or same-sex) without her name on them — she might indeed prevail. Rightly or wrongly, under the logic of Title VII’s religious accommodation regime and the RFRA religious accommodation regime, she probably should prevail.

  • Of course a birth certificate doesn’t identify a newborn as gay, just like it doesn’t identify a newborn as right- or left-handed, which is innate, has a biological origin but isn’t genetic.

    The mainstream scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is either found in a mix of genes, a mix of how genes are expressed (called epigenetics) or hormonal secretions in the mother’s womb.

  • williamwalker

    “I read it somewhere.”

    Oh, well, that settles it, right?

    Awesome ignorance.

  • But we’re talking about a single adult forming a relationship with another single adult. Not a single adult forming a relationship with a child, who cannot give informed consent (which is why children can’t sign legal documents like a marriage document), or an adult in another relationship (who is marriage to someone else.)

    There is no good reason the state should deny licenses to adults who meet all the criteria for a civil marriage other than (until June 2015) a gender difference. Utilizing apples to oranges comparisons doesn’t change that.

  • It’s not the liberal elite who expect people who are acting on behalf of the state, to follow the laws of the state. She is putting herself above the government she serves and makes rules that affect other tax paying Americans at whim.

    Strange how conservatives used to believe in law and order. They want illegal immigrants out of this country because they aren’t obeying the law. Yet, here is a woman who is not obeying the law. The hypocrisy is stunning.

    And BTW, I’m a devout Christian. Jesus is my lord and savior and because of that I think all Americans should have equal protection under law even if personally disagree with what they are doing.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    Don’t give her any ideas! LOL

  • Um.. yes. It’s called the Supremacy Clause. It’s in the Constitution too.

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    The 14th Amendment of the same Constitution says:

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

    So yes, the federal government has a constitutional place in superceding state law which it has exercised many times in the past. The federal government did this when it overturned bans on interracial marriage in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Dan Sloan try reading the post I was replying to. TheKingsCrier had written ‘Religion is a choice. Who you’re attracted to is not’. To which I noted ‘but being attracted to and acting on the attraction are two different things’.

    One may be attracted to any number of things, but that doesn’t mean we must act on them. That’s all I was noting.

    NO where did I say anything about ANY one NOT having the right to marry ANY adult of their choice!

  • Scott Terry Green

    Mr. Walker, once I know something I don’t later then question it. If you took your time Googling it for yourself instead of name calling you’d know too.

  • JeffreyRo55

    Get a haircut, you slovenly creep.
    Anyone dumb enough to believe everything he reads on the internet is too dumb to locate a barber.

  • Scott Terry Green
  • I did read it. The point was that your response is too simplistic.

  • That’s funny. Some of the bravest journalists are gay and work in Islamic, African and Asian conflict zones.

  • forple

    Dan Sloan ” It’s not the liberal elite who expect people who are acting on behalf of the state, to follow the laws of the state. ” REAL WORLD, she is following the laws of the state. An edict passed down by a group of black robed oligarchs does not pass as a law in the United States of America.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that even if her staff issued the licenses, they still have her name on it in the stamp or seal or something. The staff cannot, probably by law, put their own names on it as approving official. So if that’s true, I (grudgingly) concede her point on that.
    However, what I don’t get is that the licenses are now being issued without any signatures, and her lawyer claims they are invalid. However, that is one of the “reasonable accommodations” that Kim Davis is asking for.

  • Yes, a Supreme Court decision does pass as a law in the United States of America according to Article 2 and 3 in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is one of the three branches of government that exist in a check and balance relationship with each other.

    Article III of the Constitution says:

    “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    Sorry Charlie.

  • forple

    Jon Hendry The problem with your argument is reality. Reality is, no an 80 year old MAN and an 80 year old WOMAN cannot procreate, but such a marriage does not change the very foundational purpose of marriage “Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.” homosexual marriage does change that, because no matter what the age, two men or two women cannot , cannot procreate

  • Civil marriage is a legal agreement between two adults that give them a roster of rights and responsibilities when it comes to property division. There has never been a legal requirement of procreation.

    Gay people can and do procreate and their children (whether through adoption, previous marriages, IVF, etc.) need the same legal protections under the law as everyone else.

  • buttercupjesus

    as cogent arguments go, that is the lamest I have heard yet.

  • Jon Hendry

    I heard or read somewhere that they’re using forms with her signature pre-printed on them, but that may have been in error.

  • forple

    Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Gavin Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses: This was an open violation of an actual law that was on the books. Nothing happened to him. He was lauded for his courage, and is now the Lt, Governor of California, of course he wasn’t a Christian like Kim Davis is

  • buttercupjesus

    If you had taken the herculean effort to read a bit farther you would have seen the citation which supports Mr. Green’s thesis and proves that you are the ignorant boor abjectly devoid of a substantive response.

  • forple

    Jon Hendry Sorry but she was doing her job, issuing marriage licenses to men and women who come into her office looking for a marriage license. It is my understanding that no one, NO ONE has changed her job description telling her she needs to pass out bogus homosexual marriage licenses.

  • buttercupjesus

    What is truly fascinating is that these trolls, like JeffreyRo55 and Williamwalker, are cowards. With nothing substantive to contribute, but their ad hominem attacks, they hide their faces and their other responses to avoid being identified as the pusillanimous bigots they obviously are.

  • forple

    Hilary ” You guys will bend the rules for the human needs for companionship for straight people, but not for gay people” Imagine dropping in the middle of a jungle somewhere, where you run into a primitive group of people, who have never had any type of contact with the outside world, How would you describe some of basic components of our society today such as the internet or the smartphone? Impossible of course. And it is equally impossible to describe to most people in our society today where recreational sex is the norm, where commitment is a little used word, just how incredibly important traditional marriage is to a healthy, thriving society.

  • It’s just an excuse to hide their bigotry. By their logic then every Christian person who sold someone a gun and it ended up being used in a crime should be charged with murder along with the person who actually did the killing.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    According to this article, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0905/Jailed-Ky.-clerk-Kim-Davis-says-marriage-licenses-without-her-signature-aren-t-valid.-True
    the new licenses are being issued without her signature.
    I understand why, politically, Gov Beshear is staying out of it. But one way of out this mess would be for him to issue an executive order stating that licenses do not need a signature to be valid. Then Davis could delegate the licenses for gay couples to a deputy. In January, the legislature can come up with a more permanent situation. Apparently, according to same article above, the forms need to be updated anyway; they ask for info about the male and female applicants.

  • Michael Sandy

    The hypocrisy is that she says she CAN’T do what she manifestly HAS done in the past. The hypocrisy is that she claims an ABSOLUTE prohibition that she herself has violated multiple times.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Actually Gavin did stop when our state supreme court told him to, on March 11, 2004 our Califoria Supreme Court of issued a stay ordering the County of San Francisco “to enforce the existing marriage statutes and to refrain from issuing marriage licenses not authorized by such provisions” pending further review by the court. Mayor Newsom agreed to abide by the order.
    If you actually knew Gavin you would know he is a Christian who attends a Catholic church over in Kentfield CA.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Actually the U S Supreme Court makes rulings all the time on whether cases apply to ALL states. Be it education, family and marriage or even the Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut in 2005 involving the use of eminent domain.

    In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education.

    Then there is the 1967 U S Supreme Court UNANIMAOUS ruling in Loving vs Virginia Where Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the Virginia state’s anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which prohibited interracial marriage. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing from Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage.

  • Patricia7

    He stopped doing it when a federal judge told him to! He is not a moron or just plain stupid like this woman!!!

  • Have you anything to add to this discussion? Or are you just here to throw around childish insults?

  • Oh…you wound me so with your….wait….nope just gas.

  • forple

    or clueless like you

  • You’re confusing attraction with actually having sex. Having sex is a choice. Attraction is hormonal, the brain reacting to certain traits and characteristics one finds appealing. There’s very little active choice involved in that particular chemical cocktail.

    And nice attempt to throw pedophilia in the discussion. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, not a sexual orientation.

    Are you going to use the old chestnut that LGBTQ people are secretly pedophiles? Because I haven’t heard that since Tony Perkins last spoke.

  • Oh, Frank. Such a sad individual.

  • Trevor Lahey

    If 4 time married Kim Davis is your idea of a strong Christian, it proves that none of you charlatans have any character. I

  • forple

    There is a profound difference between Gavin and Kim Davis. When Gavin became Mayor of San Francisco, homosexual marriage was illegal in San Francisco, California, and the entire country. He decided to ignore the law and simply ordered homosexual wedding licenses to be issued, 4000 in a one month period. When Kim Davis went to work as a clerk in a small county in KENTUCKY, homosexual marriage was illegal in KENTUCKY, still is. Kim is in jail, Gavin isn’t I know, the argument ,laws against homosexual marriage are discriminatory. The online dictionary says” Treatment or consideration based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice” I have looked at a number of dictionaries, yet to find one that includes choice of the way you choose to engage in sexual intercourse included in any definitions.

  • forple

    Dan Sloan
    Sorry Danny, but in the United States of America only the people’s representatives can pass law, not some black robed oligarch. Read what you posted, again.

  • Semp

    For any of you who happen to be Christians:
    A few minutes ago, on another Patheos thread, a certain “AtticusSullivan” posted that there were “hundreds of Christians who have successfully murdered gays.”
    That’s a pretty serious slander, right – hundreds of Christians murdering gays.
    So I requested names, facts.

    His brilliant response:
    “Leviticus.” He claimed that “Christian thugs” were killing gays in Leviticus.

    Leviticus – a book that pre-dates Christian by at least a thousand years.
    This is the big persecution homosexuals talk about: “Leviticus.”
    Not one recorded attack on homosexuals in the Bible. Zip.

    Don’t let these slanderers get away with their lies.
    Call them out. Ask for FACTS.
    Christians are accused of killing “hundreds” of gays.
    But there are no FACTS.

  • Sorry Charlie, but the Supreme Court can overturn unjust laws that are passed by States. They did this as early as 1796 in Ware v. Hylton and did it on marriage itself in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.

    Read for comprehension this time. You’re either not very smart or you slept through Jr. High School Civics. I don’t know which it is, but the Supreme Court has been overturning unconstitutional laws since the Constitution was established.

  • Her job description is that as an agent of the State she has to issues marriage licenses to everyone the State has determined are eligible. The Supreme Court said that same-sex couples have the right to marriage therefore she has to issue licenses to them. To refuse makers her a lawbreaker. She can’t do her job, therefore she must resign.

  • Of course there is credible, verifiable evidence suggesting a biological origin for homosexuality. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

    There are lots of sites that show that homosexuality is found amongst hundreds or thousands of species of animals: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

    Stop being a mouth breathing knuckle dragger. Google is your friend. Use it.

  • Reread the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution… for comprehension this time.

  • forple

    Yes they can overturn laws, but they cannot create laws And our elected representatives can over rule them as they did with the 14th amendment which over ruled Dred Scott. and hopefully someday Obergefell will also be overturned in an effort to restore religious freedom in America once more.

  • They overturned unconstitutional bans on gay marriage, just like they did with bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virgina in 1967. Gay couples have the right to marry under the law like everyone else.

    There is no denial of religious freedom. A Christian has no more of a right to deny a gay couple access to a marriage license than a Muslim has a right to deny a Christian access to a bottle of beer or a pork sausage in this country. You confuse religious freedom with entitlement.

  • Scott Terry Green

    Jeffrey, you sound just like all the other good christians on here. How lovely. I provided a link for all of you rube christians. Want me to load it for your pansy ass too? Have you read the ENTIRE bible boy?

  • Scott Terry Green

    Cheers friend. I want to learn as much as I can in this life. There is plenty I don’t know and I’m not afraid to admit it when I don’t but I’m also not afraid to admit when I do. It’s really too bad that there are so many rubes out there. Ironically, they’re the chosen ones. God’s good boys. It’s funny how so many people are running in droves from their silly religion.

  • Scott Terry Green

    Even if I were gay so what? Pointing out the intolerance of others has no bearing on the pointers tolerance.

  • forple

    Please let us look at REALITY on this issue, and THINK what you are saying. So a 20 year old woman wants to “marry” her dad, two 20 year old cousins want to get married, a 76 year old grandfather wants to marry his 18 year old granddaughter, what right do we have as a society to say no. After all in 1967 Loving Versus Virginia did away with bans on interracial marriage. As for Christian persecution, I would imagine . former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, the Klein’s in Oregon, Kim Davis in this story, and many others out there would sharply disagree. with your opinion on this issue,

  • forple

    Dan Sloan I understand you were probably in school within the last 20 or 30 years, so you are quite likely illiterate as well as ignorant. Please read my original post I said CREDIBLE and yes VERIFIABLE evidence, not the pathetic tripe you produced, which might have appeared in the Onion at one time

  • forple

    Dan Sloan What is so sad about this whole issue, we have had military personnel give their lives beginning in the revolutionary war to give us our freedom, and we now have a whole generation of individuals comfortable with the whole idea of being ruled by a small group of black robed oligarchs.

  • Bill McGillicutty

    “I know, the argument ,laws against homosexual marriage are
    discriminatory. The online dictionary says” Treatment or consideration
    based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than
    individual merit; partiality or prejudice” I have looked at a number of
    dictionaries, yet to find one that includes choice of the way you
    choose to engage in sexual intercourse included in any definitions.”

    But there’s nothing about the marriage of a man and a woman that addresses “the way [they] choose to engage in sexual intercourse” either, so what’s your point? When I got married (to a female) there was no vow about anything sexual (except maybe the implied lack of sex in “forsaking all others” but even that’s open to wide interpretation…)…

    (Why do opponents of homosexual marriage fixate so much on the SEX? Forple doesn’t mention it in the comment above, but I’ve noticed that anal sex, in particular, gets a LOT of attention.)

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Am always amazed at how many heterosexual Christians do not know that cunnilingus and felatio are forms of sodomy, which they partake of.

  • Bill McGillicutty

    Those are really weak arguments.

    The “ever-present hypocrisy accusation” “only applies to sex.”

    How so? It’s just often the most salient and obvious example.

    I’ve found it hypocritical that the NRA – a group that largely endorses policies allowing people to have guns anywhere and everywhere, at all times – chose to hold their convention in a place that didn’t allow guns… Where there’s hypocrisy, it’s a problem. It becomes a SERIOUS problem when it enters the public realm and starts having an impact on the lives of citizens. But the hypocrisy thing is only cake icing in the case of Kim Davis. Even if she were on her first husband and she could prove that she had lost her virginity on her wedding night (not that I care what she’s done in that regard, to be honest), it still wouldn’t mean I’d support her protest in the form of refusing to do her job (yet refusing to step down). Her job is to issue those licenses. Yes, she’s the clerk of courts, so that means her name will be on them, but her name is there for OFFICIAL PURPOSES only, not moral purposes. There’s a reason why people get the license in a courthouse or city administration building and then, for many/most, have the actual ceremony (the one that means the most to them) somewhere else, usually a house of worship. Kim Davis isn’t issuing those as a representative of God, she’s issuing them as an agent of the secular, pluralist state, where all of the citizenry – Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Scientologists, Satanists, non-religious, agnostics, and atheists have their collectively COMPROMISED will made manifest in laws and regulations. We are all living together and trying to get along, but with some issues there can’t be a halfway compromise. Either homosexuals can marry or they can’t. Our representative democracy is allowing it. Many Christians disagree with Davis and have no qualms with it, and are happy to trot out Bible quotes to support their views, as well. Davis is entirely free to oppose it and even work to get legislation passed to ban it. But in the meantime if she wants to keep her job she needs to DO her job. Her hypocrisy is hardly the central issue here.

    “We live in a culture which preaches against “slut-shaming” and says everything goes sexually.”

    Not true. We live in a culture that is very divided on sexual matters, to the point that we’re all over the map all at once. Collectively schizophrenic, really. We simultaneously have porn and modesty culture infiltrating the mainstream. It’s hard to see where the center is at present. I don’t think our culture says “everything goes.” Rape’s not acceptable, yet it’s very often conservative voices that are loudest in opposition to attempts to make policies (even on a college campus level, let alone in state or federal law) which could help to prevent sexual assaults. The responses vary from denying that there’s any kind of large-scale occurrence of rape to telling women they need to watch what they wear and how they behave to just shrugging it all off as “human nature.”

    ““Well, who is she to talk,” people say on Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media about the Kentucky clerk. “You heard that she had affairs, didn’t you?””

    Actually, I have NOT heard that Davis has had affairs. To me, that’s less relevant than the fact that she’s been divorced and remarried (multiple times, at that). Was she able to sign off on and certify her own marriage license when she remarried? It would seem that her moral awakenings have been quite conveniently timed. Let’s presume that her most recent marriage license had to be approved by a different county clerk. What if THAT clerk had a moral awakening and determined that remarriage was un-Biblical (or, since divorces need to go through the court system, as well, imagine if she’d been stymied at that point in the process of her moral awakening – moving on to her latest relationship where she truly found God and whatnot) and opted not to issue the marriage license? I guess Kim Davis’s moral and religious progression would have met a real roadblock there, right? If she wasn’t able to be married, she couldn’t have had sex, and perhaps it would have been unseemly for her to attend church with the man who’s her latest spouse.

    It’s all fine and understandable if Ms./Mrs. Davis wants to progress spiritually, religiously, and morally, but that’s a PERSONAL quest she will have to take on herself. If she wants to oppose people of the same sex making lifetime commitments to each other (whether they choose to engage in sexual activity or not), she’s free to do that – but only on her own, personal time. Not as a public employee, paid by tax dollars.

  • petewrigley

    Nobody is necessarily condemning her affairs and multiple marriages. It’s simply being stated that Kim isn’t all that concerned with the sanctity of marriage as shown by her actions. Nobody is offended or “aghast” as you put it. If Kim didn’t turn herself into a champion for the sanctity of marriage, the people pointing out her small handful of divorces wouldn’t have said anything or cared. The only reason it’s brought up is because it’s an important part of the conversation. Where does a woman who has been divorced as many times as Ross Geller get off positioning herself as the head of a movement for the sanctity of marriage? Furthermore, why would people who agree with her decision to deny those licenses even want her to be that figure, when she can be so easily taken down? Wouldn’t you prefer someone less fallible as your martyr? If I was going to rally around someone because of my principles, I’d make damn sure they held the same principles. Kim clearly isn’t very principled in regards to the sanctity of marriage. So yes, Virginia, she is a hypocrite.

  • forple

    Bill McGillicutty “(Why do opponents of homosexual marriage fixate so much on the SEX? Forple doesn’t mention it in the comment above, but I’ve noticed that anal sex, in particular, gets a LOT of attention.)” I would answer your question with another question. We have in this country a miniscule but extremely powerful special interest group whose members differentiate themselves from the rest of society by the way they CHOOSE to engage in sexual intercourse. So just how do we discuss what damage they are doing to our culture and society, without mentioning the way way THEY differentiate THEMSELVES from the rest of society????

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Am always amazed at how many heterosexual Christians do not know that cunnilingus and felatio are forms of sodomy, which a majority of even Christians heterosexuals partake of.

    Thus not a miniscule number….. if one has read ultra conservative Christian authors Tim LaHaye and his wife Beverley’s book The Act of Marriage: The Beauty of Sexual Love. Or Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage by Ed M D Wheat.

  • D. Grace Rose

    Now, I’m not going to state that all anti-gay hate crimes are commuted by Christians, but I can certainly point to the boys who murdered Matthew Shepard.

  • D. Grace Rose

    No, he’s a Roman Catholic.

  • D. Grace Rose

    Yes, they’re called Republicans.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    This past spring Matt McLaughlin and attorney from Huntington Beach CA tried to get an initiative on our California ballot that said:

    ‘Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.’

    Thankfully it was thrown out by the courts. And then they raised the amount to get an initiative on the ballot to $2k if one cannot get the 350k number of signature from registered California voters.

  • D. Grace Rose

    It took me under 30 seconds to find a factual refutation of Jimenez’s book. Try again, please.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Matt

  • forple

    D. Grace Rose are you stoned? Is that why you can’t write an intelligible response?

  • forple

    D. Grace Rose
    Ever hear the term RINO? Gavin Newsom like Nancy Pelosi,is a CINO, Catholic in name only.

  • D. Grace Rose

    No, but feeding trolls is fun. You aren’t looking for an intelligble response. You’re wanting to engage in a slandering match where neither side actually opens their mind to any new ideas. So, instead, I poked fun at your phrase “small special interest group”.

  • D. Grace Rose

    And who are you to judge his faith?

  • forple

    D. Grace Rose
    Not judging, just stating facts. Fact, the Catholic church opposes the killing of unborn children, Gavin supports and encourages this type of activity. The Catholic church opposes homosexual marriage, Gavin supports and encourages it. The Catholic church opposes adultery, Gavin sleeps with his aide’s wives. This list just goes on and on. Old saying, “actions speak louder then words”

  • forple

    D. Grace Rose
    Just to clarify for your, the miniscule special interest group I was referring to is homosexuals, who differentiate themselves from the rest of society by the way they choose to engage in sexual intercourse. Republicans on the other hand are a large political party who differentiate themselves from their opposing parties by embracing freedom, and love and respect for the United States of America. Your comment”You’re wanting to engage in a slandering match where neither side actually opens their mind to any new ideas” is rather puzzling. Who am I trying to slander, and what new ideas am I trying to ignore?

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Kim Davis is NO Dietrich Bonhoeffer that’s for sure.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Gavin has never encouraged abortion. He does support separation of church from state as an elected official, Yes he supports same sex marriage based on our state law of treating all unions the same. And he did sleep with the wife of an aid. That was in the past. Just like Kim Davis’ multiple adulteries are in the past according to her supporters.

  • forple

    Rowan County Kentucky is a small county (23000 population), one of 120 counties in Kentucky. Why is this whole issue such a big thing, with all the major networks there to cover every breathless moment of this “drama”? Especially when you consider there are maybe only a few hundred homosexual couples in that county waiting to be “married”?

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    So if this were pre Loving vs Virginia you would be saying ‘Why is this whole issue such a big thing, with all the major networks there to cover every breathless moment of this “drama”? Especially when you consider there are maybe only a few hundred couples where one is white and one black in that county waiting to be “married”?’

    Fact is there were white separatists who said similar things to NYTimes, AP, and NBC’s Chet Huntley and David Brinkley news.

    Oh and the media is in KY because Kim Davis’ legal team sent out press releases as have Mike Huckabee Ted Cruz and others who love this circus.

  • forple

    Beth Grant DeRoos Please let us look at reality here. How does allowing a white person to marry a black person the same as allowing two perverts to get married?

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    You are not even paying attention to what you have been writing for days on end. You said that just because the US Supreme Court justices ruled doesn’t mean we should do what they say. You noted that Ms Davis works for the people in the county she lives in and should do what they want and what her personal beliefs dictate.

    Yet, in Loving vs Virginia the people of the state of Virginia as well as other southern states didn’t want inter racial marriage to be legal, yet the US Supreme Court ruled against Virginia and then made their judgment across the board for all states. No different from what the court did in the same sex marriage cases. Except they ruled in the majority in BOTH same sex marriage cases that came before the court this year.

    As for two perverts marrying. Most perverts who marry are heterosexual. Nice try.

  • CruisingTroll

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    Perhaps you can point to where marriage falls under the purview of the United States (i.e., the Federal gov’t). What this means is that the Supremacy Clause ONLY comes in to play when it’s something that is, in point of fact, a power delegated to the United States.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Marriage can be applied to the ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’, in line with We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Thus the unalienable Rights would be in line with ‘absolute rights’ of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether OUT of society or IN it.

    In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court rejected attempts by Arkansas to nullify the Court’s school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education. The state of Arkansas, acting on a theory of states’ rights’ had adopted several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials.

    In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the US Supreme Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry.

    And in the recent Obergefell vs Hodges case, the court ruled in the majority that the ban on same sex marriage violated the14 Amendment. The past and current U S Supreme Court have also noted the 5th Amendment protection per ‘nor be deprived of life, LIBERTY, or property’.

  • Excelsior

    Take a hike, troll.

  • Excelsior

    Are you going to pretend that the reason she stopped issuing marriage licenses to everyone wasn’t because of her bigotry towards gay people? She wasn’t doing it to be fair. She was doing it to justify not having to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

    People shouldn’t have to go out of the county to get their licenses. They live in and pay taxes in that county and have every right and expectation to receive their license from it.

    And as long as married couples receive certain benefits from the state then the states should absolutely not get out the marriage business. Social security, state and federal taxes, healthcare, and employee benefits all receive marriage benefits from the federal or state government. The state doesn’t issue a license just so you can get married. You get that license so you can become eligible for benefits and tax incentives.

  • State laws that abridge the rights and privileges of citizens of the U.S. are banned by the 14th Amendment which explicitly says: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

    Your quote includes: “nor prohibited by it to the states”. The Court determined that the Constitution does prohibit state laws that limit marriage to opposite sex couples. The Supremacy Clause says that the 14th Amendment takes precedence over state laws.

    You lose.

  • Loving vs. Virginia overturned a state ban on interracial marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges overturned state bans on same sex marriage. In both cases, the Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause in exactly the same way.

    Your silly slippery slope about incest isn’t the same at all. Attraction to a specific person (a family member) isn’t the same as attraction to *all* people of a race or a gender (which violates existing laws banning legalized discrimination on the basis of race or gender).

    Your Christian persecution complex is even sillier. The former Atlanta Fire Chief was fired because he was in a position of authority and published a book demonizing his own subordinates which caused a hostile workplace. His abused his position. The Kleins in Oregon knew that a public accommodation business license means that they can’t discriminate in who they provide business to. Kim Davis abused her position as a government official and denied legally qualified applicants a service that they had a right to receive. None of these people were persecuted for simply being a Christian. They were sanctioned because they chose to discriminate against others.

  • We’re not ruled by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took an Amendment passed by Congress and applied it in exactly the same way they have done with Constitutional Amendments since 1797.

    Our government’s system of checks and balances means that Congress can overturn this Supreme Court decision by passing a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. Once the Amendment has been added to the Constitution, the Supreme Court can’t rule against it.

    Did you sleep through High School Civics? This is a pretty basic principle of our democracy.

  • If you read the articles you would see that they are based on credible and verifiable evidence that is documented in peer reviewed literature published by respected universities like University of California-Berkeley, Oxford University and University of Toronto. If you can provide evidence that none of this is true from similar peer-reviewed scientific publications I’d be more than willing to see it. Otherwise, I’ll assume that it’s coming from the voices in your head.

  • Most people in the world who have AIDS are heterosexual. Many are Christians in eastern Africa.

    Secondly, if one wants to reduce HIV transmission there is no better way to do that than by encouraging stable, monogamous relationships which is exactly what same sex marriage does.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Excelisor I agree with you 100%. My point she opted to not issue any licenses as an excuse for her bigotry.

    And people need to ask themselves if someone didn’t believe non whites should be able to vote, would they support a government worker telling a person they can move to another county and register there?

    What if for religious reasons someone doesn’t believe in consuming meat, would they get away with not issuing hunting or fishing licenses?

  • forple

    With all due respect the one article refers to a researcher by the name of Lavey,, the only reason he is still working in a university setting is the simple fact that his “research furthers the homosexual agenda and the fact that they “If you read the articles you would see that they are based on credible and verifiable evidence that is documented in peer reviewed literature published by respected universities like University of California-Berkeley, Oxford University and University of Toronto. ” really throws that whole process into question. for his research into the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 3 was nothing short of a joke, violating EVERY researchers most basic rules, He had a group of dead bodies. Part of the group were friends and lovers he knew from the homosexual community who he knew were homosexual. 17 other bodies he did not know who they were, so they obviously were not homosexual, but of the 17 bodies who were supposed to be part of his control group, six had died of AIDs, a disproportionally high number of cases for supposedly heterosexuals.. This situation brought up a serious unanswered question. How do you tell how a person chooses to engage in sexual intercourse after they have died? Most of Hamer’s research is equally sloppy, and has been thoroughly discredited by researchers in Australia and England.

  • forple

    No, but obviously you did,. Just what Amendment are you talking about? The reality is we are supposed to be a representative democracy, supposedly our representatives pass laws. Today we are largely ruled by a black robed oligarchy who rule by judicial edict.

  • forple

    Please try sometime to look at reality”Your silly slippery slope about incest isn’t the same at all. Attraction to a specific person (a family member) isn’t the same as attraction to *all* people of a race or a gender (which violates existing laws banning legalized discrimination on the basis of race or gender).” REALITY IS, legalizing homosexual marriage opens the door to all kinds of mischief. On what grounds, under the 14th amendment can you deny a 20 year woman from marrying her father? Marriage was an effort to create an institution, that was determined to be an optimal one for creating a relationship between a MAN and a WOMAN for bringing children into the world and raising them to be healthy responsible adults. That whole concept has just been tossed out. marriage is just whatever you want it to be. So what is stopping an incestuous marriage if they are both adults?

  • forple

    Can’t answer my concerns? So who is the mindless liberal democrat troll?

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Actually we are a Constitutional Republic. Three branches of government to keep power in check. I bet you like the black robed oligarchy who rule by judicial edict when they rule the way you like.

  • forple

    Beth Grant DeRoos “As for two perverts marrying. Most perverts who marry are heterosexual. Nice try. “Merriam Webster says”an aberrant (deviating from the usual or natural type) sexual practice or interest especially when habitual “, which means all homosexual marriages are perverts marrying.. Loving vs Virginia is a splendid example of how wrong and really unnecessary rule by black robed oligarchs is even if the decision is one you really like. Anti miscegenation laws were common in this country, with many states having such laws on the books, but the legislative process was getting rid of them, without the help of black robed oligarchs. Sometimes the oligarchs will pass down an edict that proves to be an abject disaster, look at Dredd Scott, which caused two contentious and lengthy constitutional amendment battle to overturns. Or look at Roe V Wade which has resulted in the deaths of 50 million babies

  • Excelsior

    No, because you’re not serious. Go away, troll.

  • Excelsior

    You’re always going to have a person that thinks their personal beliefs give them a right to discriminate against other people. To a certain extent they are right, however, if you are going to take a government position and swear an oath to uphold that position then you need to understand that your personal beliefs take a side-seat to the law. You are acting as a representative of the state, not as yourself. This is why Kim Davis’s argument keeps getting thrown out of court. She is issuing marriage licenses as Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County and not as Kim Davis private citizen. Her ability to issue licenses is only granted to her through the state and it is as a state official that she operates. If she feels her religious beliefs are not compatible with the law then she should resign. And that goes for anyone else. If you cannot reconcile your belief against eating meat with your position that requires you to issue hunting or fishing licenses then you should not be accepting that position.

    We’ve managed for almost 250 years with officials who have been able to put aside their personal beliefs in order to represent and serve a community that consists of people with different faiths and lifestyles and they’ve managed to do it without making it about themselves. We’re not gonna change it now because one hypocritical bitch from Kentucky thinks she’s better than everyone else.

    This whole ordeal draws parallels to the civil rights movement. Government officials felt that their belief that whites were superior to blacks and that their beliefs gave them a right to discriminate were above the law. They were wrong. We all know now that they were wrong. Discriminating against a person solely because of the color of their skin is abhorrent and inconceivable today. When a person has a constitutional or legal right then you cannot prevent them from exercising that right. Kim Davis is finding out the hard way that she is on the wrong side of history.

  • Excelsior

    Fuck yeah they would be. This is America and anybody who attempts to deprive someone of the Constitutional rights is gonna become enemy #1. Religion doesn’t matter when a person’s rights are being trampled. The only difference if it was a muslim lady is that the christian nutjobs who are currently standing up for Kim Davis would be on the correct side of the debate.

  • Excelsior

    I bet if a gay person gave you a dirty look you’d cream your pants.

  • Excelsior

    Both gay and atheists journalists who work in Islamic areas really are brave. There are extremists who actively seek them out to either beat and/or kill them. You’ve gotta have guts to work in an area where you know people are looking for you to cause you harm.

  • Excelsior

    Except she wasn’t born a christian. She became a christian. If you mean she was born a mega-bitch then you may be correct. It still doesn’t giver her a right violate someone’s constitutional rights.

  • Excelsior

    Does your birth certificate identify you as “asshole”?

  • Excelsior

    She is a representative of the state. The only reason she is in that position is to officiate the duties and provide the services of the state. The state is providing the marriage license and Kim Davis’s name is on them as County Clerk of Rowan County and not private citizen. This has absolutely nothing to do with her personal beliefs. She can go on practicing her religion and going to church just like she has always done. This bullshit about her name being on them is an endorsement of gay marriage is nonsense created to justify her bigotry and nobody is buying it.

    And if you want to go the “put her life right” route then I’m calling you out. She wants to use her faith as an argument then I’ll do the same. Her religion clearly states that divorce is NOT allowed and that marriage is for life. It also says that a person’s second marriage is not recognized and is an act of adultery. That means that even though she’s been remarried, for the fourth time, in the eyes of her God she is still committing an act of adultery and is currently living a life of sin and therefore has not put her life right. If she wants to throw the first stone, fine, but don’t act like her perversion of marriage is any better. Are we supposed to pretend that she is protecting the sanctity of marriage by getting divorced three times? Get the hell out of here with that hypocritical bullshit.

    I’m tired of this made up war on christians. You don’t lose your rights if another group gains some. You’re confusing persecution with not always getting what you want. Come talk to me christians are no longer the most catered to group in America.

  • forple

    Excelsior
    Thank you for a splendid example of liberal cluelessness, ignorance and bigotry. Christians are having their businesses destroyed, they are losing their jobs, dealing with death threats, and this is a” made up war on Christians”. True in one place only liberal world. Reality is Christians should be the most catered to group in America, If America was sane, because of the contributions Christians make to their community. Instead, the most catered to group in America today are homosexuals, who drain obscene sums of money from their communities. .

  • forple

    Hey troll, you are the one not being serious, answer my concerns.

  • Kim Dickerson Harding

    christians will always be able to defend themselves using the bible that has numerous conflicting verses. If you call one on it they will ultimately say, the “lord” commanded it, so they can ignore the other versus. no one can deny that she only targeted gay couples to discriminant against, just maybe ignore.

  • Nishi Hundan

    Kim Davis is a fat piece of s***

  • Bill

    1. If the guy or gal worked for Miller, Coors, Bud, Buffalo Trace, etc. then proficizing the sins of drinking might be a problem with his (or her…let’s not be sexist) employer, don’t you think?

    2. The fact that she had multiple affairs should not be an argument, agreed, provided that all of that is truly in the past. I don’t know, nor does it matter to me. What she does behind closed doors with her life is her choice.

    3. Maybe Ms. Davis has ‘found the way’ and is on a virtuous path now with her life. If so, great for her to find that as her choice for her life. Only a few will know that for sure and I don’t doubt her sincerity. But I do challenge her ability to to do her job, given her responsibility to the public, all the public, not just those she agrees with religiously. Would she refuse a marriage license to a man and a woman, if she knew that one or the other (or both) had cheated in previous relationships or had had sex prior to marriage? Slippery slope….

    When one takes an action against what they believe is wrong, by default, they condone whatever else they allow. This is one reason why censorship becomes such a problem.

  • Excelsior

    I was being serious and then you went and said “there is no such thing as gay people”. If you won’t be serious then neither will I.

  • Excelsior

    You need to go back to elementary civics and retake the class. The gay community finally got the right to marry just this year and you call them the most catered to. You’re delusional. Christians aren’t special, they just think they are. And they’re losing their businesses not because they’re christian, they’re losing their businesses because they feel they are entitled to discriminate against people they don’t agree with and America is coming together to say that it no longer acceptable to be ignorant bigots. You can no longer deny a person’s constitutional rights and justify it by crying religious liberty.

    People other than christians have rights in this country. The problem is when people finally get those rights that are guaranteed to them the bigots cry “war on christians”. You’re confusing persecution with not always getting what you want. Come talk to me christians actually have a right taken away from them.

    And if you want to talk about draining sums of money, go look at how many court cases christians have lost because they want to violate the Constitution and fight to keep religious symbols on government property. They lose every single one of those cases and every time they lose they cost the taxpayers in the community tens of thousands of dollars.

    You need to reevaluate the Separation of Church and State, the Establishment Clause and why religion is not and should not be part of our government.

  • forple

    “I’ve found it hypocritical that the NRA – a group that largely endorses policies allowing people to have guns anywhere and everywhere, at all times – chose to hold their convention in a place that didn’t allow guns.” Typical silly liberal “logic” So if the NRA wants to hold a convention, the first need to spend millions building a facility, for most facilities large enough to hold a convention in this country are gun free zones