Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky.
NYT
Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who has defied court rulings by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has vaulted suddenly from being one of the state’s thousands of little-known local officials to being a national symbol.
Since the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in June that legalized same-sexmarriage, Ms. Davis has refused to issue marriage licenses to any couples, gay or straight. She has sued on the grounds that granting licenses to same-sex couples would violate her Christian beliefs.
bad rules be damned but only about gun control
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell are you yammering about now?
I don't get your label. Her "bad rules be damned" stance is clearly not about gun control.
ReplyDeleteWow, another Democratic government official getting into trouble. I wonder how she's enjoying her new digs in jail.
ReplyDeleteI think these gun loons only read your labels, and I love the way you get them going by the choice of your labels.
ReplyDeleteShe is (in jail) where she belongs.
For Kurt and TS who love to pretend to not get it, I'll explain. When a gun nut violates a law he's a hero (at least in your eyes). When this woman violates a law she's a what, a bigot, a close-minded Christian fanatic who fails to practice the first rule of her own teachings, the one about love? How would you guys describe her?
ReplyDeleteContentious that you always are, I guess you'll now come to her defense. She's acting on her principles, blah, blah, blah. But that's bullshit. She's discriminating against people in a way that's illegal.
For Kurt and TS who love to pretend to not get it, I'll explain.
DeleteNo "pretend[ing]" here, Mikeb. I promise, if I'd had any inkling that your gambit was this clumsy, I would have gleefully ridiculed it right from the beginning.
When a gun [rights advocate] violates a law he's a hero (at least in your eyes). When this woman violates a law she's a what, a bigot, a close-minded Christian fanatic who fails to practice the first rule of her own teachings, the one about love?
When a gun rights advocate violates one of the many thousands of gun laws in the U.S., he does no harm, to anyone, and violates no one's rights. That cannot be said of Ms. Davis' crime.
And that's without even getting into the fact that county clerks, as elected officials, are part of the government, and as I have recently pointed out, a lawless government invalidates both the law and the government.
See how easy that was? Here you were, apparently thinking that you'd cornered us into either abandoning our "bad laws be damned" stance, or defending homophobic authoritarianism--and you didn't even come close.
I think I know what's going on here. I think you're so in love with your weird notion that gun rights advocate="right wing," and right wing=homophobic, racist, misogynist, that it deeply offends you that the overwhelming majority of gun rights advocates you encounter here have a largely libertarian philosophy, and just stubbornly refuse to fit in the little pigeonholes you try to stuff us into.
Good luck working that out, Mikeb, because you're embarrassing yourself with this silly shit.
People DIE in America everyday because idiot, dangerous, gun loons don't follow the law.
DeleteIt's not silly shit to point out you gun loons support criminal acts and encourage criminal acts.
The military man who broke gun rules (you gun loons supported his illegal action) is a government employee.
You gun loons are indeed dangerous, criminal, idiots.
So, you are criticizing Kurt and me for taking the same side as liberals, and presumably even you.
DeleteI don't need to add much to what Kurt said other then why the hell does the government have to give us permission to marry? He job should be just processing when citizens inform her that they just got married. And no I won't be jumping to her defense? Where do you stand with her, Mike? Obviously you approve of sheriffs denying gun permits for whatever reason they chose, and you've already draw parallels to gun licenses and marriage licenses, so you must be consistent on this issue, right?
"The military man who broke gun rules (you gun loons supported his illegal action) is a government employee."
DeleteAnon, I'm presuming you're back to talking about the Chattanooga Naval Base shooting that we discussed at length before. The Marine was breaking the rules unless he had permission to carry from the base commander. Going to be hard to punish him though since he died fighting a terrorist.
The other guy, WAS the base commander and since he has the authority to permit carry of arms on post, then he can likely carry legally himself.
And as far as I know, he hasn't been charged with any crimes, which would suggest that it was ok.
. . . other then why the hell does the government have to give us permission to marry?
DeleteAgreed--the government needs to get out of the marriage approval business.
If one person can shut down weddings across an entire county, we need to ask ourselves why we give one person such power.
DeleteHey, guys, I'm not the one who goes in for a selective rendering of bad rules be damned. I've said all along you gun nuts should obey the rules and use the democratic process to change what you don't like. In the same way county clerks who issue marriage licenses should do so according to the law, whether they like it or not.
Delete"When a gun rights advocate violates one of the many thousands of gun laws in the U.S., he does no harm"
DeleteSee, you gun nuts don't care if your buddies break the law. Breaking the law does no harm, except those innocents who happen to get hurt, or killed because some criminal gun loons broke a gun law.
I remember SS. I also remember charges were filled because he had no such authorization, but nice try at your typical lying.
Right BS,TS; you are so smart you claim I am a liberal HA HA HA HA HA HA thanks for proving you are full of shit, and WRONG.
"I remember SS. I also remember charges were filled because he had no such authorization, but nice try at your typical lying."
DeleteWe back to talking about the Commander of the Navy base in Chattanooga again Anon? I don't recall seeing any article that he had been charged. Only that there was an investigation where he might be charged. Perhaps you could share a link to what you read?
Wait, I did see one article that talked of being charged. Here it is,
http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/08/navy-will-charge-sailor-allen-look-stupid/
MikeB: "I've said all along you gun nuts should obey the rules and use the democratic process to change what you don't like. "
DeleteAnd I've said all along that there is a process to amend the constitution, but you insist on ignoring the 2A by saying "bad amendments be damned".
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI've said all along you [who oppose genocidal tyranny] should obey the rules and use the democratic process to change what you don't like.
DeleteAnd you have said that you would probably have defied the Fugitive Slave Act of the mid-19th century, despite that legislation having been passed by a democratically elected government. Therefore, you have acknowledged that even such governments can and do pass laws so heinous as to deserve defiance, even before they can be changed through "the democratic process" you so piously drone on about.
Is that the best you can do, an example from nearly 200 years ago? Pathetic.
DeleteMike, there are many more current examples. The two states that decriminalized marijuana for example. Or the sanctuary movement. In those cases though, its governments which have chosen to not use the democratic process.
DeleteA couple of other examples would be those that helped women acquire abortion services when the procedure was illegal, and those that broke the law and refused to report for military service as required. No waiting for the democratic process there either.
Is that the best you can do, an example from nearly 200 years ago?
DeleteWell, if this were nearly 2050, I suppose it would be "nearly 200 years ago." The larger point is, what the hell difference does it make when it was? We have established that you acknowledge that democratically elected governments can and do pass heinous laws--laws whose defiance is morally permissible, or even morally compelled.
With that, your "laws must be obeyed until they can be changed through the democratic process" has been forever removed from the table, and flushed down the sewer, which will immediately become a much less pleasant place.
Fair enough, there are some laws that should be disobeyed. Unfortunately, gun control laws are not among them. This is just more bullshit from you guys trying to elevate your personal obsession with guns to the plane of moral right and wrong.
DeleteFair enough, there are some laws that should be disobeyed.
DeleteI'll take that as an admission that my example wasn't at all "pathetic," after all.
Unfortunately, gun control laws are not among them.
Says you. And who anointed you arbiter of what laws are too heinous to obey? You, yourself? That's fine, for purposes of determining which laws you decide to obey. For myself, I'll go to someone in whose judgement I have vastly more confidence. Come to think of it, that's hardly narrowing things down much, so to be more specific, I will meet my moral obligation to make my decisions on which laws deserve my obedience, and which deserve only my contempt and righteous defiance.
Put her so far back in the cell they gotta pipe her the fucking food.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how her religious convictions fit in with 3 divorces?
ReplyDeleteWell Anon, I imagine being a Democrat might have prepared her for being able to justify almost anything.....
DeleteRight, great come back SS, HA HA HA HA you truly are a kill crazy, lying, stupid fool gun loon, thanks for proving it everyday.
DeleteShe's a Democrat? Is that why she is surrounded by Republicans like Hucababy, Cruse, and the rest of the right wing idiots?
ReplyDeleteTad, the abortion issue is one which has adherents in both parties. In fact, a ways back, the Minnesota had two very strong unofficial branches based on the pro-life and pro-choice positions. The state primaries would often go on just about forever trying to come up with something acceptable to both sides.
DeleteThis is about gay marriage not abortion.
DeleteMike, in the eyes of the religiously devout of some faiths, it isn't a Democrat and Republican thing. And that was my point. People like to put those with strong religious opinion into the neat predefined cubby of Republican conservative. However, it doesn't always work out that way.
DeleteYou went out of your way to label her as a Democrat, you brought up the political point SS. Since she has surrounded herself with the right wing Republicans, yours is a failed, wrong point.
Delete"You went out of your way to label her as a Democrat"
DeleteYes Tad, I did. Mike seldom posts stuff about the transgressions of democrats, so I was sort of surprised when he did. And as I had said previously, the issue is one that is religious. Not political. If Ms. Davis had had any honor, she would have resigned when she learned she would be required to go against her perceived faith. But that would have only afforded her a few column inches in the county paper.
I am pretty sure she labeled herself as Democrat when she ran for office on the Democrat ticket and put that (D) after her name.
DeleteIf you SS, or her had any honor, you wouldn't suggest this was a democratic maneuver, policy, or position when she surrounds herself with the far right wing as her supporters on this issue. I can see you want to divert this to be a Democratic thing, you lose.
DeleteSorry Tad, I didn't suggest it's a democratic policy. Democratic politicians love to trot out Republicans that agree with them though to lend themselves credibility. When it happens to their benefit, they call it bipartisanship. In this case though, there are some other Democratic politicians who go against the grain,
Delete"Eleven House Democrats are on record as opposing gay marriage, even as support within their party for the issue builds."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/291097-bucking-the-trend-the-house-democrats-who-oppose-gay-marriage
I was actually mentioning it along the lines of the same way Mike likes to document misbehavior by Republicans. Perhaps Mrs. Davis was just returning to the old school ways of the Southern Democrats of the Jim Crow south.
I personally think she's desperately grasping for whatever support and media attention she can get to somehow validate her act of civil disobedience. Bet that thought will make Anon happy.
"I didn't suggest it's a democratic policy."
DeleteYour choice of word "policy" doesn't get you off the hook for suggesting her problem is being democratic, nor does her position represent a democratic position.
Now you bring abortion into this? You are a joke. Enjoy yourself.
Politicians don't seem to strongly bound by the "party line" of either party when it comes to doing what needs to be done to get elected/reelected. That's because its entirely up to the voters. One needs but to look at the number of pro-gun Democrats to see that.
ReplyDeleteAnon is right, you are so dishonest in your debate tactic, you are just worthless to even talk to.
Deletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-davis-republican_560596fbe4b0dd8503077eec
DeleteThere you go SS, the woman herself proves your claims to be BS, but all who read this blog knew that about you already.
I saw that Tad, and in fact there are numerous examples of politicians changing parties mid-term. And as I said at the beginning, the honorable thing to do would have been for her to resign if she couldn't do her job in good faith. (pun intended)
DeleteAnd she has now been the cause of an entire series of memes to highlight her poor choices,
http://reverbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/10.jpg
Of course the point is to show what a dishonest person you are, but anon. proves that everyday about you. I'll let him continue, he does a good job.
DeleteIt's no surprise these kill crazy gun loons support her, even though she is violating her sworn oath, they have proven many times they support law breakers.
ReplyDelete