ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, July 09, 2015

The Rainbow Nazis attack conscience

And, incidentally, civilization. That certainly didn't take long:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky has filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Rowan County couples, two same-gender couples and two opposite-gender couples, denied marriage licenses by County Clerk Kim Davis, a press release from the ACLU confirms.

Davis is standing firm on her decision to stop issuing marriage licenses, despite dozens of protesters who gathered outside the courthouse.

“My conscience will not allow me to issue a license for a same sex couple,” says Kim Davis, “because I know that God ordained marriage from the very foundation of this world to be between a man and a woman.”

In explaining the ACLU’s decision to file suit on the couples’ behalf, ACLU of Kentucky Cooperating Attorney Laura Landenwich stated, “Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs.”
The Rainbow Nazis really appear to be hell-bent on seeing the establishment of a post-democratic American theocracy. Because that's what is most likely going to come out of this Sodom and Gomorrahstan totalitarianism in the end. They're like children who can't resist pushing until they discover where the limits are.

Within a year, they'll be attacking priests and pastors too.

It appears that it won't be all that much longer before everyone discovers what happens when enough people stop consenting to the consensual fiction known as "the law".

Labels: , ,

166 Comments:

Blogger Robert What? July 09, 2015 3:22 PM  

I don't get it - if the President doesn't have to obey the law, why does a County Clerk?

Anonymous Musashi #0350 July 09, 2015 3:25 PM  

Bring on the chaos.

Blogger Jonathan Bennett July 09, 2015 3:29 PM  

War is coming. I'll have trouble feeling too sorry for some of the victims. Maybe war is like a forest fire. The longer you go without one, the worse it will burn.

Anonymous Duke of URL July 09, 2015 3:30 PM  

I absolutely support this statement. It has nothing to do with whether or not I or anyone else support a particular law/position/opinion.
Public servants are just that - they are NOT royalty entitled to decree that a given law is nullified.
If one doesn't feel that one can enforce/obey a law that is part of their job, then they have only one honorable recourse: immediate resignation.
"Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs.”

Anonymous Brian Almon July 09, 2015 3:30 PM  

If I recall, the clerks resigned rather than issue the licenses. What does the ACLU want to do, force them to come back to work after they quit? There is a word for that, rhymes with slavery...

Blogger Salt July 09, 2015 3:32 PM  

Unleash the Krakken.

Blogger John Morris July 09, 2015 3:38 PM  

I would point out that the ACLU doesn't have this sort of "government officials can't pick which laws they like" attitude when it comes to other subjects, sanctuary cities for a recent example. But I won't because I think we all know what SJWs do.

The better question is why do they do it? They lie even in the rare case where speaking the Truth would serve the skirmish of the day better. Lying is to them obedience to a commandment, an act of worship to their Dark Lord, the Father of Lies. And it serves their larger objectives. By lying each and every day and then forcing everyone else to at least mouth the lies if they don't want to call down the howling mob, they kill the Truth a little every time.

Blogger Robert Coble July 09, 2015 3:47 PM  

Presidential Press Conference on clarification of government employees First Amendment rights:

"No one is above the law of the land (EXCEPT ME). Everyone working for government at all levels who swore an oath to uphold the law cannot pick and choose who is going to be served, or which duties of that office will be performed (or not) based on religious beliefs. I, your Dear and Glorious Leader, have spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done. Now go and fornicate freely. #LOVEWINS I have spoken. That is all."

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo #0368 July 09, 2015 3:52 PM  

I agree with the Duke of URL

I absolutely support this statement. It has nothing to do with whether or not I or anyone else support a particular law/position/opinion.
Public servants are just that - they are NOT royalty entitled to decree that a given law is nullified.
If one doesn't feel that one can enforce/obey a law that is part of their job, then they have only one honorable recourse: immediate resignation.
"Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs.”




That said, I also agree with John Morris.

"I would point out that the ACLU doesn't have this sort of "government officials can't pick which laws they like" attitude when it comes to other subjects, sanctuary cities for a recent example."

Blogger kh123 July 09, 2015 3:52 PM  

...In explaining the ACLU’s decision to file suit on the happy, happy couples’ behalf, ACLU of Kentucky Chicken Coop Attorney Laura Landwhale stated, “Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, because these are all purely make-believe - if she were a man it'd be a different story. But, where was I... Ah yes. But! As a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law - which has nothing to do logically or historically with aforementioned unicorns - she cannot act like a private enterprise and pick and choose who she is going to serve, shirtless, shoeless or otherwise. Unless she's a photographer. Or bakes cakes. Or has considerable share in running something with either tech or ducks. In which case, she'll have to bend over appropriately or face the consequences.

So, TL;DR: She can believe what she wants, she just can't live or act as if any of it were real. Unlike equality or transgender, which is as rock solid and government approved as Candy Mountain over there. And which as you can see our clients are furiously licking, in a completely pure, non-socially engineered form of ecstasy.

Blogger Lana J July 09, 2015 3:54 PM  

The gaystepo have a little glitch in their "progress" march. Grab the popcorn on this one.

Anonymous Dave July 09, 2015 3:56 PM  

@John Morris

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

Where was the aclu when the Clinton's and Obama's AGs were busy not enforcing laws they disagreed with.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 09, 2015 3:57 PM  

As you say, they are lowering the barriers to ignoring law, and that leads to chaos.

Chaos favors no one, but it favors these LGBT/Womyn/FSA-types least of all.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 09, 2015 3:58 PM  

Sanctuary cities don't have to obey the law. The IRS doesn't have to obey the law. Intelligence agencies don't have to obey the law (and are free to lie to Congress without consequences). The President doesn't have to obey the law, nor does the Attorney General. The New Black Panthers don't have to obey the law. And on and on and on.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 July 09, 2015 3:58 PM  

On the plus side this might wake up some of the useful idiots into seeing the ACLU for what it really is.

Blogger Alexander July 09, 2015 3:59 PM  

Thanks, Lana.

It's going to be a great day when white liberals come to terms that their big tent signed up for the free gimmedats... and not a thing further. The blacks, mexicans, et. al. have precisely zero shits of concern for progressive ideals.

Blogger kh123 July 09, 2015 4:00 PM  

...Shades of Clarence Darrow:

~You cannot deny the teaching of evolution in public schools simply because of your limited, theological objections. Take note which way the wind blows today!

~My clients were driven to abduct that boy, kill him, and pour acid on his body to obscure identification by such pernicious concepts as the theory of evolution. Look at their faces... No, not the victim's...

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 09, 2015 4:06 PM  

Regarding the oaths of government officials, whatever happened to the sanctity of marriage vows? Crushed flat, of course -- by the same sort of people who now want us to think they regard promises as sacred.

OpenID simplytimothy July 09, 2015 4:08 PM  

or anyone else support a particular law/position/opinion.
Public servants are just that - they are NOT royalty entitled to decree that a given law is nullified.
If one doesn't feel that one can enforce/obey a law that is part of their job, then they have only one honorable recourse: immediate resignation.


Did she swear an oath to God or Obama and the ACLU?

In 1550 the Magdeburg Confession laid the intellectual basis for Protestant Christian resistance to corrupt and evil civil authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_Confession

The doctrine started there has been developed into The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate

When a "law" attempts to abrogate the Laws of God then it is our Christian duty to stand firm, and govern ourselves.

Blogger The Remnant July 09, 2015 4:09 PM  

Excellent news. I've often doubted there's anyone left in government with a conscience, so I'm happy to be proven wrong. People need to understand that a Supreme Court decision is not "the law of the land" or the equivalent of a constitutional amendment. It's merely a resolution of a specific dispute between specific parties, and it doesn't bind anyone else. Let the lawsuits fly, and argue in each one that the Constitution is supreme and does not strip the states of their sovereignty over this issue.

Blogger Guitar Man July 09, 2015 4:11 PM  

"I'm just following orders" says the soldier after slaughtering all of the children at a village.

Anonymous zen0 July 09, 2015 4:11 PM  

The first wave of legislation, from 1933 to 1934, focused largely on limiting the participation of Jews in German public life. The first major law to curtail the rights of Jewish citizens was the "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" of April 7, 1933, according to which Jewish and "politically unreliable" civil servants and employees were to be excluded from state service. The new Civil Service Law was the German authorities' first formulation of the so-called Aryan Paragraph, a kind of regulation used to exclude Jews (and often by extension other "non-Aryans") from organizations, professions, and other aspects of public life.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 4:20 PM  

Sorry, but given that her conscience obviously prohibits her ability to perform her duties as a public servant, her only real option is to resign and find new employment. If my employer suddenly changed my job description to include something I was morally against, as a private sector employee my only real choices would be to compromise my beliefs or find a new job. Why should public employees be given greater leeway?

Anonymous Jim July 09, 2015 4:21 PM  

The ACLU was notably absent when the Kentucky Attorney General refused to defend Kentucky's marriage law because of "his beliefs." As noted above, the requirement to follow the law applies only when the objector is something other than a social justice warrior.

Blogger Zaklog the Great July 09, 2015 4:22 PM  

she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform

I wonder if this ACLU employee has any comment on "sanctuary cities" deliberately ignoring our immigration law.

Anonymous BGS July 09, 2015 4:23 PM  

Going after Clergy was last year. http://www.afa.net/action-alerts/lesbian-mayor-subpoenas-sermon-notes-and-communications-from-houston-pastors/

Anonymous Roundtine July 09, 2015 4:23 PM  

Satan's law firm is on the job and she works for Caesar. Not liking her chances.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 4:24 PM  

given that her conscience obviously prohibits her ability to perform her duties as a public servant

Kentucky has both statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. She is following the law and doing her duty.

Anonymous zen0 July 09, 2015 4:26 PM  

From reading the article, it is clear the offended couples could just get a licence from a neighbouring county. She is obviously being targeted just like the bake shops.

Predatory whining.

Anonymous BGS July 09, 2015 4:29 PM  

Even worse http://www.gaypatriot.net/2015/07/09/gay-dude-sues-bible-publisher-for-publishing-bibles/

Blogger luagha July 09, 2015 4:29 PM  

One, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law violates the Constitution it is no law and any government official following the Constitution instead of some lesser law or some judicial dictate is acting honorably, properly, and within the law. They should feel no moral or spiritual failure.

Two, everyone has the right of rebellion, and to choose not to do what others would try to force them to do. Of course, there will be consequences, good and bad. In this case, many laws protect the government official and they can be wisely used to drag out every inch of the rebellion for to cost the enemy time, treasure, attention, focus, and goodwill. That is in itself a good, to counter all the bad that the enemy will try to accrue.

Blogger Sir Wilshire (#320) July 09, 2015 4:31 PM  

Did Daniel and his friends "quit" their jobs when asked to bow in worship to the Babylonian idol? No. The point is to make them force you out and leave the results up to God.

Blogger slarrow July 09, 2015 4:33 PM  

To paraphrase Andrew Jackson, Justice Kennedy has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 09, 2015 4:35 PM  

Roundtine: "Satan's law firm is on the job and she works for Caesar. Not liking her chances."

If there is shame in her bad odds it doesn't fall on her but on everyone who could have backed her up but did not.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler July 09, 2015 4:37 PM  

It is fascinating to see this all worked out. Vox here talks of Rainbow totalitarianism.

In another post today, Vox posts on the Jews in France coming to the realization that France has become hostile to Jews and Vox links to the article.

Well, within the article is this tidbit:
Photographs and videos of the swastika and its perpetrator, of protesters chanting “Kill the Jews,” and of the Palestinian, Hamas, and ISIS flags were sent in a rush to various groups in the Jewish community who assess threats. By early afternoon, some of these reached Sammy Ghozlan, a 72-year-old retired police commissioner who has spent his career working the banlieues, the belt of working-class, racially mixed suburbs that surround Paris. Ghozlan is a folk hero of the banlieues and has a nickname that is impossible to forget: le poulet cacher—“the kosher chicken.” (Poulet is slang for cop.) For 15 years, he has overseen France’s National Bureau for Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism—known by its French abbreviation, B.N.V.C.A.—a community hotline he founded that is funded by his police pension and whatever small donations he can come by. Its purpose is nothing less than to protect the Jews of France.

What does totalitarinism do? It sets up an institution to feret out badthink. You can see that in the quoted paragraph above. What does a Jewish Policeman do? he sets up a think police institution! He sets up France’s National Bureau for Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism. They are photographing and cataloguing "Bad think". Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center here in America, founded by a Jew.

Where does Totalitarianism start? Right there!

Who started the ACLU?

Jews.

Who is setting up the totalitarianism in America?

The Jews---who do the most complaining about totalitarianism!

Funny how that is.

Blogger IM2L844 July 09, 2015 4:37 PM  

Conscientious objectors are people too.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 4:37 PM  

@Edd - She is also refusing to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples, in direct conflict with her job duties.

Next.

Anonymous Mike M. (minion #315) July 09, 2015 4:44 PM  

"Within a year, they'll be attacking priests and pastors too."

A year? Vox, I honestly think we'll see the first lawsuits by the end of this MONTH. Certainly by the end of August.

The backlash will be hard and fast.

Anonymous Hrw-500 July 09, 2015 4:47 PM  

@Lana J

Thanks for sharing this article and as one Twitter poster nicknamed jdkoops said and he got a good point about this then I decided to quote his post:"Would you call for impeachment if this person said his faith was islam?"

Blogger Marie July 09, 2015 4:49 PM  

@Rip. She has to. If she refuses to issue just homosexual licenses she will be discriminating. But if she refuses to issue any license at all she's not discriminating because she is treating everyone equally.

Is it a conflict of her duties? The statues normally say "may issue" not "must issue" when it comes to marriage licenses.

If you run enough people out of their jobs you might find state legislators starting to pass law saying they will not issue any marriage licenses in their states.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 09, 2015 4:53 PM  

In explaining why obtaining a marriage license in Rowan County, as opposed to a neighboring county is important, Plaintiff Aaron Skaggs stated, “We have been citizens of Rowan County since the beginning of our relationship and love being members of this community. So, it only makes sense that we would want and should be granted our right to be recognized as a loving couple having freedom to marry here at home.”

This registrar, not some other registrar. This county, not some other county. This florist, not some other florist. This cake shop, not some other cake shop. This pizza parlor, not some other pizza parlor. We have chosen our victim, and we will cry out in pain as we beat her.

It is impossible to have peace with people like that. They don't want peace, they want victims.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 09, 2015 4:58 PM  

Marie: "The statues normally say "may issue" not "must issue" when it comes to marriage licenses."

Of course the "may issue" versus "shall issue" distinction is famous because of another issue on which law need not be obeyed, provided social justice warriors are doing the disobeying: gun rights, which are in the Constitution, affirmed by the Supreme Court, and routinely infringed as they are not supposed to be, with no consequences for those doing the infringing.

Blogger Marissa July 09, 2015 5:05 PM  

I would point out that the ACLU doesn't have this sort of "government officials can't pick which laws they like" attitude when it comes to other subjects, sanctuary cities for a recent example. But I won't because I think we all know what SJWs do.

Indeed, the left protects their own when they break the law. The right hangs their own out to dry when they break the law, even if the law is evil and should be broken.

Anonymous Goodnight July 09, 2015 5:09 PM  

Keep in mind, County Clerks are not some low level local government employee. They are elected officials who usually handle civil and misdemeanor courts, all licensing, and a huge portion of county revenue and budget. The word 'clerk' makes them sound like the person working the counter. Depending on the state constitution, a County Clerk can have very broad discretion in issuing any documents including marriage licenses.

Anonymous Soga July 09, 2015 5:11 PM  


Indeed, the left protects their own when they break the law. The right hangs their own out to dry when they break the law, even if the law is evil and should be broken.


CONSERVATIVE A: Oh hey Mr. Conservative B, sorry, but you broke the law. Man up, accept responsibility. It's never a victory if you don't play by the book. Consequences build character!

(20 years later)

CONSERVATIVE A: Son, you broke the law. We were fine with you having sex with your boyfriend in public, but then you just HAD to screw a goat. Man up! Accept responsibility! It's never a victory if you don't play by the book. Consequences build character!

Blogger Kevin Blackwell July 09, 2015 5:14 PM  

Shall means sometime in the future. It's a word game. If I say I'm going to do something tomorrow and it's Friday, when it comes to Saturday people would think it would be done but it isn't tomorrow.

First google definition
(in the first person) expressing the future tense.

So some time, in the future, they shall have a marriage license. Don't trust your brain, go look at every definition you can find. This is why people get into troubles with codes, they use words you don't understand.

Blogger Marie July 09, 2015 5:16 PM  

@McWhite

Ha! Agreed!

I have no doubt this poor woman will lose her argument due to the ringmasters running the show at the moment. But the argument is there to make.

Oh, I shouldn't get started on the 2nd amendment. I am one of those that think that requiring a conceal and carry permit is unconstitutional. It is little more than a state tax and you can't tax my rights.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 5:16 PM  

@Rip She is also refusing to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples, in direct conflict with her job duties.

Per the SJWs on the Supreme Court, she may not issue legitimate marriage licenses without also issuing the licenses prohibited by state law and the state constitution. You contention that she has a duty to violate the law of the state that employs her fails. And quite miserably.

Anonymous A Visitor July 09, 2015 5:22 PM  

"I don't get it - if the President doesn't have to obey the law, why does a County Clerk?"

He's special, he's someone, and he has more clout than said County Clerk. In other words, it's basic corruption.

"Public servants are just that - they are NOT royalty entitled to decree that a given law is nullified." Using that logic SCOTUS is not entitled to decree hidden rights within the 14th Amendment either.

The 1st Amendment is not being violated here because it was SCOTUS, not Congress, declaring homo unions legal. Whoever first came up with that idea, using SCOTUS for judicial legislation, instead of Congress was a frickin genius.

"Kentucky has both statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. She is following the law and doing her duty."

I looooooove it!

Anonymous Thule July 09, 2015 5:23 PM  

Mexicans aren't Muslims and Civil Servants aren't clergy. You're really off your game today Vox

Anonymous Beau July 09, 2015 5:25 PM  

A year? Vox, I honestly think we'll see the first lawsuits by the end of this MONTH. Certainly by the end of August.

The backlash will be hard and fast.


So let it be written, so let it be done.

or,

Roman official: "I have wild beasts!"

Polycarp: "Call them."

Blogger Student in Blue July 09, 2015 5:31 PM  

Mexicans aren't Muslims and Civil Servants aren't clergy. You're really off your game today Vox

Idiot. Comparing something is not calling two things the same. Did you fail middle school?

Blogger Marissa July 09, 2015 5:35 PM  

If there is shame in her bad odds it doesn't fall on her but on everyone who could have backed her up but did not.

Right on. Plenty of conservatives will stab her in the back, out of a sense of "honor" and "fair play". There is a post over at Castalia House blog about this. If you want to fight back against the filth in this country, you need people like this woman to stand up and say "No" to it. Not give up or go along with it. No government on earth can make sodomite marriage the law.

If this woman had refused to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act, milquetoast rightists would find a time machine in order to call for her head because she wasn't complying with the law.

Blogger njartist July 09, 2015 6:03 PM  

...but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law...

The oath taker swears to uphold the U.S. Constitution and his state's constitution: this presupposes that the oath taker comprehends both constitutions: documents written in plain language and easily understood. If the ACLU has problems with those who uphold their oaths, it should demand that oaths no longer be taken for government jobs.

Blogger Brad Andrews July 09, 2015 6:04 PM  

Jury Nullification remains a valid principle similar to this.

One reason I am unlikely to ever be on a jury, or possibly end up in jail for contempt of the judge if I do.

Blogger Brad Andrews July 09, 2015 6:04 PM  

Jury Nullification remains a valid principle similar to this.

One reason I am unlikely to ever be on a jury, or possibly end up in jail for contempt of the judge if I do.

Blogger ray July 09, 2015 6:08 PM  

Well done by Kim Davis. However, as a Christian, she has no business being employed by a State that makes its hatred for Christ and Christianity a central platform of both ruling parties.

County jails in America teem with men who shouldn't be there, except they have displeased or offended some female, any female, somewhere along the line. Half the male county-jail population in the U.S. now would fit this description. Yet there is no Scriptural authorization for the caging of men, much less the mass-caging (and terrorization) of boys and men. It was somebody's idea, all right, but that somebody was not God.

Therefore my sympathies for Ms. Davis are limited. She should be home taking care of her grandchildren, not administering county 'justice' (overwhelmingly, to m-e-n) which like most justice in New America is basically whatever any female says it is. Increasingly the county courts, from deputy clerkships to judgeships, are staffed by women. County courthouses are seas of Independent Females. Most of the 'jobs' left available to males are enforcement. Muscle. Jezebel justice. Women are even beginning to take over the guard gigs. Turns out they're great at sitting at consoles, monitoring caged men while checking daytime teevee dramas on mini-electronics.

Nice going folks.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 6:18 PM  

However, as a Christian, she has no business being employed by a State that makes its hatred for Christ and Christianity a central platform of both ruling parties.

When did Kentucky do that?

Blogger Marie July 09, 2015 6:21 PM  

" However, as a Christian, she has no business being employed by a State that makes its hatred for Christ and Christianity a central platform of both ruling parties."

So we just take our ball and go home?

Why should Christians just give up the government because at the moment it is controlled by those hostile to us?

The government isn't putting anyone in jail for going to Church (yet.) I can only imagine how much worse the government would act if all of the Christians left.

Blogger Jehu July 09, 2015 6:27 PM  

Brad,
When you use jury nullification you know you never have to breathe a word about Nullification. All you've got to do is say...
I don't think the reasonable doubt standard has been met. What is reasonable doubt anyway? Is it 1 in a billion? 1 in a million...its whatever the hell you say it is. Acting as a motivated skeptic I seriously doubt you could find a single case you couldn't nullify on using that approach.

Anonymous The One July 09, 2015 6:31 PM  

The white knights are out in force today.
It's simple, are we a nation of laws or men?
The supreme court proved we are a nation of men. The law means nothing now, it's an all out power struggle.

Anonymous WillBest July 09, 2015 6:36 PM  

she has no business being employed by a State that makes its hatred for Christ I don't recall Jesus telling the centurion anything like that.

And quite frankly, telling Christians to voluntarily purge themselves from the ranks of power is idiotic from a strategic standpoint. Its far easier to press the point if you are in a position to force others to recognize you. We should pray that God give her the strength to stand up until she is removed from office even if that involves time in jail for contempt of court.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 July 09, 2015 6:40 PM  

NJArtist is right. The ACLU attorney is lying of course. The County Clerk took an Oath to the State and US Constitutions, not "the law". Otherwise a law could be passed mandating the slaughter of all the grandmas, and you'd have to obey it because it's "the law".

Blogger Hunsdon July 09, 2015 6:40 PM  

Fred Reed has one out that goes pretty much hand in glove with this discussion. You know where to find him.

Blogger Mark Citadel July 09, 2015 6:47 PM  

@Marie - consider, if EVERY Christian quit the US military tomorrow, there would be a crisis. We, as a community, could actually blackmail the government. Unfortunately, we're too disorganized, and in most cases brainwashed by the pathetic Conservative movement to actually mount such a defense of our interests.

Blogger Thordaddy July 09, 2015 6:48 PM  

It's better to think "they" make laws only "we" must obey.

Blogger Thordaddy July 09, 2015 6:51 PM  

"They" want Liberation without separation...

"We" want separation without Liberation...

It's not going to be pretty.

Blogger aut0062matthew July 09, 2015 6:52 PM  

ckl was Tad.

Blogger Tommy Hass July 09, 2015 6:53 PM  

The God argument really doesn't hold water in a country where not at least 70% are seriously Christian.

Blogger Robert What? July 09, 2015 7:05 PM  

I agree with you. However the President has decided that he doesn't have to obey the law. So why should a county clerk have to?

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 09, 2015 7:08 PM  

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

In reporting a disobedient officer to Herod, the official said: “Captain Aaron has the absolute right to believe whatever he wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, he cannot pick and choose which commands he is going to obey, or which duties his troop will perform based on his religious beliefs.”

Blogger Tommy Hass July 09, 2015 7:14 PM  

I would say that "gay marriage" is not a thing and that the tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" exists for a reason.

Anonymous Full-Fledged Fiasco July 09, 2015 7:17 PM  

O.T.:

"A peculiarity of popular culture, which is also commercial culture, is that it dislikes competing with its own earlier iterations. Commercial culture therefore tends to be dismissive or even hostile in respect of its past, emphasizing its ever-renewed, up-to-date, and often cloyingly topical relevance, as its chief sales point. This state of affairs means that the consumers of popular culture, while they are aficionados of genre, often know little about the history of genre, what we might call the archive. Science fiction – which established its market in mass-circulation “pulp” magazines in the 1930s, and then prolonged its appeal in the form of the mass-circulation paperback in the 1950s – offers a case in point."

Blogger Rantor July 09, 2015 7:20 PM  

At least one and probably two sitting justices worked on issues related to gay marriage before joining the court. By law they are required to recuse themselves. They did not. Reason for citizen nullification through the appeals process. This woman should use this as part of her defense. The court has proven itself dishonest and unreliable.

Blogger Mark Citadel July 09, 2015 7:21 PM  

Tommy - Christians who support Liberal policies are not Christians. They are apostates.

Blogger Rantor July 09, 2015 7:24 PM  

And what Stg58/Animal Mother 225 said. Oath is to the constitution and not the law. If the law violates the constitution than the law is void.

Anonymous Susan July 09, 2015 7:24 PM  

Speaking of blowback, France and Russia both have issued photos of Straight Pride flags that are being circulated now in their respective Countries.. Both are blue and white, with traditional man/woman with kids families on each flag.
Breitbart has an article about it right now.

Lots of commenters using the them as an avatar. Very nice punch in the gaystapo face.

Anonymous Eric the Red July 09, 2015 7:33 PM  

Faith without the ability to act on that faith means nothing, and the leftists know it. This won't stop with government officials, and it won't stop with the "public square". I know it, and you know it. This is just the end of the beginning of a scourge of Christians and Christianity everywhere the rabid leftists can find it, including the so-called privacy of your own home.

Anonymous LegallySpeaking July 09, 2015 7:36 PM  

OT: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (known as the SJC) now requires all its courts to instruct juries on the difficulties on Cross-Racial Identification (CRE). The opinion came out on June 25, 2015, and is known as Commonwealth v. Bastaldo. Link: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1705792.html

Citing a wealth of social science research (!), the court concluded that CRE is more difficult than in-racial group identification—i.e. it is more difficult for a black to tell the difference between two whites than to tell the difference between two blacks, and more difficult for a black to identify a specific white than a specific black.

The court also noted that science (!) indicated that cross-ethnicity identification (i.e. Germans identifying a specific Greek person) may also be more difficult than an intra-ethnic identification (i.e. German on German) but the science was inconclusive.

The Massachusetts SJC concluded that the only safe thing to do was to require in all cases that a judge instruct a jury on CRE and its difficulties unless both prosecution and defense agree there is no CRE problem in the case.

So we have one of the most left-wing states in the U.S. having its left-wing high court (and it is a left-wing court, check their case law) admitting through science (!) that race exists in some form and causes difference in people’s behaviors and abilities. Of course, it may simply be that, because such a recognition will only help black defendants beat the rap, the lefties are willing to own up to it.

Anonymous BGS July 09, 2015 7:57 PM  

At least one and probably two sitting justices worked on issues related to gay marriage before joining the court. By law they are required to recuse themselves. They did not

I saw somewhere talk of impeaching the 2 justices that performed gay marriages because they didn't recuse themselves, but leftists will never have the morals to do such a thing.
http://www.alan.com/2015/04/30/ben-carson-impeach-justices-who-back-gay-marriage/#
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/steve-king-impeach-supreme-court

I am surprised no one commented on the story I linked about the guy suing the bible publisher for badfeelz.
"A homosexual man has filed a $70 million lawsuit against Bible publishers Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, alleging that their version of the Bible that refers to homosexuality as a sin violates his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional distress.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, an ex-con turned author, filed the federal suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Monday, the same day a judge refused to appoint him a lawyer for his suit against Thomas Nelson, The Grand Rapids Press reported."

Blogger Lovekraft July 09, 2015 7:58 PM  

I for one find the last few months hilarious (Dolezal and mattressgirlporn being prime examples) in how the progressive insanity is finally being revealed.

As for worrying about them attacking priests, a servant of God worth his salt welcomes being persecuted for his/her faith and knows a higher reward awaits him then all the approval the world can provide.

Blogs like this are real-time historical records of current events that, if preserved, will one day be used to tell the real story of the Decline of the West.

Blogger JACIII July 09, 2015 7:59 PM  

Hell, Legally Speaking, taxachusetts essentially said, "They all look alike to me!"

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 8:14 PM  

Edd - please pick an argument and stick with it. My assertion is and has been that she is not doing her job, and if she cannot in good conscience do her job she should resign. Your initial rebuttal was the Kentucky law prohibiting same sex marriage, fine, but she is still refusing to perform her duties to heterosexual couples. Yes, the SC has stated that she can't legally discriminate between the two, ergo she can either abide by the, um, law, or not. She has chosen "not", so she either needs to resign or be impeached for neglecting to do her actual job. Period.

Now, if you want to continue arguing in circles and actually undermining yourself, be my guest, but neither you nor she can have it both ways. The fact is that anything other than issuing licenses to both hetero and homosexual couples (provided of course that they meet all other requirements*) is an act of refusal to perform her job.

* Disclaimer added to head off any pedantic nit pickers.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 8:24 PM  

And for those trying to claim that her oath is to "the constitution", it doesn't mention marriage. Constitutionally speaking, that's up to the states. Therefore in order to uphold her obligation she should be issuing the appropriate licenses to hetero couples and refusing to issue them to homo couples. If she were doing that, she would at least have a principled stance to argue. By refusing to do both she is tacitly acknowledging that she by law has to issue licenses to both.

Blogger Brad Andrews July 09, 2015 8:39 PM  

So Rip, if someone arbitrarily redefines the Constitution, with no legal basis, she must conform.

Hardly. Impeaching the Justices who went outside their bounds should be impeached instead.

Anonymous Toucan July 09, 2015 8:46 PM  

Those bastard southern states. They should be summarily dismissed from the union immediately.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 8:46 PM  

Therefore in order to uphold her obligation she should be issuing the appropriate licenses to hetero couples and refusing to issue them to homo couples.

You keep begging the question of what she is obligated to do. Assuming your premise is a logical fallacy. Quote the statute or regulation compelling her to do so, please. Or retract.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 8:51 PM  

Brad, that argument and a buck will still get you a coke in some places, but not much else.

It also completely ignores at least half of my point, but I suspect you already knew that.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 8:54 PM  

@Brad So Rip, if someone arbitrarily redefines the Constitution, with no legal basis, she must conform.

I have challenged Rip to produce the law he demands she conform to. I suspect will turn out to be nothing more than a penumbral emanation or some other type of fabricated law.

Anonymous Mudsack July 09, 2015 9:02 PM  

So, Rip, would you 1) enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, or 2) resign and let someone have the office who would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act?

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 9:10 PM  

Edd - your "challenge" is patently absurd, but the state statute in question is 402.080. I really hope, though, that you are just being pedantic rather than ignorant or (even worse) stupid in that you are suggesting that it ISN'T the duty of the county clerk to issue marriage licenses.

Mudsack, I accept your surrender.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 09, 2015 9:11 PM  

My fair play conservative persona is on vacation, maybe forever, and I simply do not want to play Ol' Conservative Papa any longer.

Word of warning to the leftards, when 'Murka gets its Greece moment, back off quickly with the demonization propaganda like this gay marriage bake me a cake or go to prison shit, and especially the Cultural Marxist white devil crap, because the neutrals and the go alongs will go apeshit, and I don't think you will win their hearts and minds with your propaganda.

Anonymous Ain July 09, 2015 9:16 PM  

"“Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs.”

But is a pithy way of saying "forget everything I just said because now I'm going to tell you what I really think."

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus July 09, 2015 9:17 PM  

"Public servants are just that - they are NOT royalty entitled to decree that a given law is nullified.
If one doesn't feel that one can enforce/obey a law that is part of their job, then they have only one honorable recourse: immediate resignation."

1) Kentucky law forbids same-sex marriage. The SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges was unconstitutional on its face, and is therefore of no force or power in Kentucky. This county clerk IS doing her job.

2) Demanding that a public official fulfill certain religious-based criteria in either beliefs or behavior (in this case, abrogating her own religious beliefs) is an unconstitutional religious test.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 9:17 PM  

@Toucan - preach it!

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 9:21 PM  

Titus - sorry, incorrect on both counts. Point 1 is invalidated by her refusal to issue heterosexual couples marriage licenses. Point 2 is just patently untrue, this isn't a case of conscription.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 9:24 PM  

@Rip I noticed that you failed to quote, resorting instead to the disingenuous dodge of citing a statute which provides no support for your position. Let me quote the statute you cited, given your failure to to so.

"No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk."

I am invoking Rule 2 of this blog, that you have already violated once. Quote the statute or regulation compelling her to issue a marriage certificate or retract.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 9:34 PM  

Seriously, read the first few words of the second sentence. There is even a separate statute dealing with the special circumstances in which a license for marriage may be issued by anyone other than the county clerk. None of which include a sitting clerk refusing based on any sort of beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus July 09, 2015 9:35 PM  

Titus - sorry, incorrect on both counts. Point 1 is invalidated by her refusal to issue heterosexual couples marriage licenses. Point 2 is just patently untrue, this isn't a case of conscription.

Actually, I am *quite* correct on both counts.

1) Refusing to issue heterosexual marriage licenses is irrelevant to the specific issue of her refusal to issue homosexual ones. As has been pointed out upthread, her job does not actually require her to "shall issue" any marriage license.

2) There is no "conscription" stipulation in the Constitution's forbidding of religious tests (instead of "conscription," I think the term you meant to use would be "commandeering").

Anonymous zen0 July 09, 2015 9:36 PM  

50. Thule July 09, 2015 5:23 PM

Mexicans aren't Muslims and Civil Servants aren't clergy. You're really off your game today Vox


Maybe you are off your rocker. He specifically pointed out how Mexicans are not like Muslims, and he never said Civil Servants are clergy.

Now I know you are unteachable, as you only have rhetoric to wield, but I would just like to point out that maybe you should work on the mote in your own eye, you know, the thing that makes you an idiot.

Blogger Nobody July 09, 2015 9:37 PM  

Uh... since when does the SCOTUS decisions become the law?

Ah... right. Because they set the precedence. See? Says so right there in Article 2123, Section 532: Clause 213.

SCOTUS spoke! Bend the knee!

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 9:43 PM  

@Rip 2. "You are expected to back up your assertions, so don't be surprised if you happen to get called on them. If you fail to back up an assertion when called on it, but refuse to retract the statement, understand that I reserve the right to delete the relevant comment and all subsequent comments you attempt to make." Your citation defines the party who may legally issue a marriage certificate to an under-aged girl. It provides no support for your false and repetitious "obligation" assertion.

I am again invoking Rule 2 of this blog, that you have already violated twice. Quote the statute or regulation compelling her to issue a marriage certificate or retract.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 9:44 PM  

Titus - she's refusing both, ergo you are incorrect and it IS completely relevant to what I've stated from the beginning. And yes, the exact wording of the statute states "shall issue" and then lists exceptions for which they "may" be issued by, wait for it, another COUNTY CLERK. Why? Because it is the job of the county clerk to issue marriage licenses within his or her county and that job is not delegated to any other office with a few exceptions that are also spelled in state law.

2. No, I meant conscription. As in, conscientious objectors were sometimes allowed not to serve in combat due to religious convictions. Elected officials are not allowed to ignore the legally defined duties of the job they voluntarily sought and won based on religious beliefs.

Anonymous zen0 July 09, 2015 9:45 PM  

98. Rip July 09, 2015 9:34 PM

None of which include a sitting clerk refusing based on any sort of beliefs, religious or otherwise.


Oh boo hoo. Now one just did. Your move. Just remember, it is all recorded for posterity, just like in Nazi Germany. When the worm turns, as it always does. your shame will echo throughout history.

Go ahead, legal beagle, tell us how it was ok to disallow Jews from serving in the civil service in Germany in 1933. That was a "law" as well. And it was the first step.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 9:49 PM  

Edd - actually, it defines who "shall" issue marriage licenses to underage girls and then makes the allowance FOR WOMEN OVER 18 to get their license from A COUNTY CLERK IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY. I completely backed up my assertion that, by refusing to issue ANY marriage licenses, she is neglecting the legal obligation of the office of the county clerk.

Anonymous clk July 09, 2015 9:51 PM  

Matt K. This is not the first time you have accused me of being Tad .. and by similarity.. I assume a troll... You are wrong on both accounts and I would ask that you refrain from such statements.

.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 9:53 PM  

@Zen - My move? Seriously, take your meds or get a tutor to read what I wrote and explain it in whatever your first language happens to be. And here I thought ridiculous comparisons to Nazis was the beloved tactic of SJWs.

Anonymous zen0 July 09, 2015 9:59 PM  

107. Rip July 09, 2015 9:53 PM

@Zen - My move? Seriously, take your meds or get a tutor to read what I wrote and explain it in whatever your first language happens to be. And here I thought ridiculous comparisons to Nazis was the beloved tactic of SJWs.


Maybe you do not understand the phrase "wrong side of history". You are busy with your little project of parsing phrases, but of course will not address my question.

Was it wrong to disallow the Jews from serving in the civil service by law properly enacted by a sovereign state?

Anonymous Scintan July 09, 2015 10:01 PM  

Edd - actually, it defines who "shall" issue marriage licenses to underage girls and then makes the allowance FOR WOMEN OVER 18 to get their license from A COUNTY CLERK IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY. I completely backed up my assertion that, by refusing to issue ANY marriage licenses, she is neglecting the legal obligation of the office of the county clerk.

But, using what you cite to, what if there's no "she"?

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 10:02 PM  

Edd - actually, it defines who "shall" issue marriage licenses to underage girls

And does not obligate to clerk to issue a certificate to any underage girl who requests one. You are deep into non sequitur territory.

and then makes the allowance FOR WOMEN OVER 18 to get their license from A COUNTY CLERK IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY.

And still does not obligate the clerk to issue one to the adult female applicant, your emanation of a penumbra pleading notwithstanding.

To remind you: "You are expected to back up your assertions, so don't be surprised if you happen to get called on them. If you fail to back up an assertion when called on it, but refuse to retract the statement, understand that I reserve the right to delete the relevant comment and all subsequent comments you attempt to make."

I am once again invoking Rule 2 of this blog, that you have already violated thrice. Quote the statute or regulation compelling her to issue a marriage certificate or retract.

Blogger Eric July 09, 2015 10:02 PM  

I can't get any more excited about this than about the Obergefell itself. City governments are subordinate to state governments are subordinate to the federal government. That's just the way it is. This was in the cards as soon as the Supreme court decided the wisps of emanations from the penumbras as decoded by the special USSOC decoder ring means governments have to pretend Adam and Steve are "married".

You are most certainly right about them going after priests and pastors, though it remains to be seen how successfully. Forcing private individuals to perform ceremonies is a big legal step from directions to government officials.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 10:04 PM  

But, using what you cite to, what if there's no "she"?

And an underaged "she" at that.

Anonymous Eric the Red July 09, 2015 10:08 PM  

That law states that if a license is going to be issued, no one else besides the county clerk shall do so. However, it has nothing to do with whether the license is supposed to be issued in the first place, especially if the clerk decides not to do it.

Your reading is nothing but your interpretation, as I no doubt you will fire the same accusation back at me. Nonetheless, the wording of this law is based on assumptions that you cannot assume to be true nor back up in any way except by the purest rationalization.

You love it when SCOTUS does it, so now we're doing it, and nullifying the unConstitutional SCOTUS ruling as well. Too bad for you, bud. You and your kind have made it all about power, so don't try to prattle on as if it's somehow rooted in logic. Sooner or later you and your kind will be usurped... read it and weep.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 10:09 PM  

@Zen - yes it was morally wrong, but I rather doubt you really want to get into that type of a discussion with a political anarchist. Those who support the state when it suits them tend to pitch a fit when it doesn't. I don't have any sympathy for them.

Anonymous zen0 July 09, 2015 10:18 PM  

114. Rip

@Zen - yes it was morally wrong, but I rather doubt you really want to get into that type of a discussion with a political anarchist.

Seriously? A political anarchist with anal retentive detailed law fetishes?
I think not.

If it was morally wrong for the nazis, it is morally wrong for the Yankees.

Anarchists are only good for being useful idiots by statists to achieve their goals.

See Gavrilo Princip,

Blogger Elocutioner0226 July 09, 2015 10:24 PM  

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205

Statute 402 makes it crystal clear that the only marriage recognized is one man, one woman. Period. She is following state law and faithfully executing it, despite the Governor saying it's okay to ignore state law.

The SCOTUS ruling was clearly unconstitutional and I expect a number of states will pass laws to nullify this legislative edict from the court, like how a number of states have nullified federal gun laws.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 10:24 PM  

As I figured, first Edd neglects to read the OP which states that the clerk is refusing to issue any marriage licenses (part of her job description, btw) and states that since Kentucky state law and constitution forbids same sex marriage then she is actually not neglected her job duties, then when I correct him and point out that she is also refusing heterosexual couples their marriage licenses, he moves the goalposts and "challenges" me to provide the law - which I do. THEN he and others start trying to argue ridiculous semantics that it doesn't state she MUST issue marriage licenses even though it is listed as one of the powers ONLY delegated to the office of the county clerk with certain, legally defined exceptions (most of which involve the office being vacant for various reasons).

Sorry, but you are wrong. I know, you know and ya mama knows it, you're just digging that hole deeper and deeper rather than admitting that you are patently wrong.

And Eric, you have no idea what "my kind" is and you obviously can't comprehend basic Engrish. Do yourself a favor and don't project your ridiculous ASSumptions about what I believe. I have only stated what are basic facts relating to the job duties of the office of the county clerk in the state of Kentucky.

Anonymous Rip July 09, 2015 10:28 PM  

Electro - is she issuing licenses to heterosexual couples?

;)

Zen - I happen to enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of statists of all stripes, sue me. You can think we are useful idiots for statists, but statist aren't even useful. They're just idiots.

Blogger SirThermite (VFM #0025) July 09, 2015 10:29 PM  

The same people who were arguing just a few short weeks ago that letting gays "marry" wouldn't affect religious folks at all, are now openly pushing for the resignation and exclusion of every concientious Christian from every elected county clerk position in the U.S. I'm guessing an inordinate number of these same SSM supporters lecturing us about the importance of state and local government employees following Federal law...would be livid if one of these same government employees arbitrarily chose not to honor or renew their state-issued medical marihuana cards...

Their duplicity is noted by us, and it's all being written down by a Higher Authority than any here on earth

Anonymous Scintan July 09, 2015 10:29 PM  

THEN he and others start trying to argue ridiculous semantics that it doesn't state she MUST issue marriage licenses even though it is listed as one of the powers ONLY delegated to the office of the county clerk with certain, legally defined exceptions (most of which involve the office being vacant for various reasons).

I hate to break this to you, but someone needs to, so here goes:


The law is all about ridiculous semantics.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 10:30 PM  

first Edd neglects to read the OP which states that the clerk is refusing to issue any marriage licenses

You're lying.

ridiculous semantics that it doesn't state she MUST issue marriage licenses even though it is listed as one of the powers ONLY delegated to the office of the county clerk with certain, legally defined exceptions (most of which involve the office being vacant for various reasons).

Translation: There is no explicit obligation in the law, but there just has to one because of Rip's feelz.

Man up. Retract.

Anonymous zen0 July 09, 2015 10:38 PM  

@ Rip

Zen - I happen to enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of statists of all stripes, sue me. You can think we are useful idiots for statists, but statist aren't even useful. They're just idiots.

You are still avoiding my question. It was not is it morally wrong to keep people of a specific faith from being civil servants, is it legally wrong to do so, even if there is legislation by a sovereign state against it.

And as an addition, now that you have avoided the issue, do you then agree that muslims cannot be civil servants as well?

Blogger Elocutioner0226 July 09, 2015 10:39 PM  

Correct, she's wrong to not be issuing actual marriage licenses as per what's been reported.

Blogger Thordaddy July 09, 2015 10:46 PM  

Self-annihilators cannot form unions, conceptually, legally or physically... And the SCOTUS did not make homosexual "marriage" constitutional, but made man/woman marriage "unconstitutional."

Anonymous paradox July 09, 2015 10:46 PM  

I now support Muslim immigration to the US. Time to outsource throwing these fags from American roof tops.

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly July 09, 2015 11:00 PM  

@ Jehu: That is not jury nullification, that is just finding someone not guilty.

@BigGaySteve: You have ample opportunity to black knight. Go and demand a gay wedding cake from a muslim bakery or try and get married at a mosque.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 09, 2015 11:26 PM  

Idiot. Comparing something is not calling two things the same. Did you fail middle school?

No, he had all the required shots.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 09, 2015 11:30 PM  

Rip, let me ask you a question. Of the options below, which comes closest to what you believe:

a) Gay marriage is a human right and Conservatives who oppose it are bigots.
b) Gay marriage is an abomination and Liberals who endorse it are socially destructive fools.
c) I don't care one way or the other about Gay Marriage and think the government should get out of the marriage business
d) Gay marriage may be bad, but right now it's the law and it's more important for government officials to uphold the rule of law than to impose their personal conscience on society.
e) In an earlier time, when we had more honest courts and officials, I would have been all for upholding the rule of law, but right now it's more important to win because the other side uses the rule of law against us and we will lose if we unilaterally follow Marquess of Queensbury rules.
f) Government officials are mostly scum and we should cheer when one of them is under attack, regardless of who they are and what they are being attacked for.

Blogger JCclimber July 09, 2015 11:41 PM  

which "law" is it exactly that they are expecting her to uphold? Did Kentucky pass an actual law through their legal process that requires her to issue licenses to marry to same sex couples?

Because SCOTUS cannot legally pass new laws.

Blogger Random July 09, 2015 11:45 PM  

My Imp of the Perverse likes choice "F"

Blogger kh123 July 09, 2015 11:48 PM  

Statist is as Statist does.

Blogger JCclimber July 10, 2015 12:07 AM  

After reading all the comments here, methinks someone above has great difficulty in understanding the difference between two words.
SHALL
and
MUST.

If that person had actually followed the debate about issuing a license to carry concealed weapons, they would know that legal rulings have firmly declared that is it okay to parse "shall" quite differently from "must".

But then their rhetorical argument which is thinly disguised as dialectical would fall apart, and feelbadz would be the result.

Anonymous Jourdan July 10, 2015 12:23 AM  

OT: I'm getting word from colleagues in Europe that Germany has caved and that a deal will be formalized by Sunday writing down significant number of Greek debt in return for Greek reforms, a few of which that will cross Greece's red lines, but many more that will not, victory will be declared, Greece stays in Euro, EU.

Time will tell, but the sources I'm hearing this from are VERY reliable.

Anonymous Steve Brown VFM#0273 July 10, 2015 12:30 AM  

zen0 has won the day!

Blogger Danby July 10, 2015 12:45 AM  

@Rip

We don't care.

Fairness is a purely theoretical construct, and has no acknowledged legal force.

Morality has now been outlawed. Right and Wrong are officially banned designations.

All that's left is power, and in a power struggle outside of morality, only effectiveness counts. That's all that's left. If there is no longer a moral imperative on the other side, there is no longer any moral imperative for anybody on this side. If the Left is free to ignore the constitution and break the law with impunity, , so are we.

Go complain at Obama, and Boehner, and Reid and that viscious idiot bitch that replaced Holder. When you've stood up to them, you can come complain about a coutny clerk in rural Kentucky.

We don't care.

Blogger Tommy Hass July 10, 2015 12:52 AM  

OT: Tese guys are rather special, aren't they.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Blogger Danby July 10, 2015 1:07 AM  

Bold and bright, bright and bold, the Atheists will explain it all to you by denying the evidence of their very eyes.

Anonymous Eric the Red July 10, 2015 1:19 AM  

That law does not even begin to list the number and kind of exceptions that might apply for issuing a license. Your logic is poor, and your reading skills are abysmal. And yes, I DO have exactly the right idea as to who you and your kind are, because you fit in exactly with the other leftists who come to this blog and try to bleat their nonsense using subjective semantics. As I intimated before, you are now meeting opposition from your avowed enemies, and you are getting hurt and angry from all the feelbadz. Boo hoo for you.

Blogger Groot July 10, 2015 1:47 AM  

@Rip:

My feels: Sad. You have actually managed to turn an entire thread to full-thrust boring. On Vox Day's blog! Didn't think that could happen. Please RIP Rip. Elsewhere.

Blogger rho July 10, 2015 2:17 AM  

"No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk."

If I'm reading that correctly, that means a homosexual under 18 can marry in Kentucky if they can establish residency. I assume there's some kind of parental consent involved, but a properly progressive parent would grant that easily if it meant getting hitched to a wealthy older homosexual.

Man, Kentucky has been the butt end of every joke where some hillbilly marries his sister, now they get to be Ground Zero for pederast marriage. Welp, that's what you get, Kentucky, for being the redneck whipping boy for the Yankees.

Blogger SirThermite (VFM #0025) July 10, 2015 2:53 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger rho July 10, 2015 3:03 AM  

I only spell this out for the others reading this because again, you're a contemptible liar.

No, I'm extrapolating a logical result of the Supreme Court ruling and delivering a sweet, sweet burn to Kentucky for being an apostate State in the War of Northern Aggression.

If your minion number is accurate, there's quite a gulf between #1 and #25.

Anonymous The Political Class July 10, 2015 6:37 AM  

128. Jack Amok July 09, 2015 11:30 PM

Rip, let me ask you a question. Of the options below, which comes closest to what you believe:

a) Gay marriage is a human right and Conservatives who oppose it are bigots.
b) Gay marriage is an abomination and Liberals who endorse it are socially destructive fools.
c) I don't care one way or the other about Gay Marriage and think the government should get out of the marriage business
d) Gay marriage may be bad, but right now it's the law and it's more important for government officials to uphold the rule of law than to impose their personal conscience on society.
e) In an earlier time, when we had more honest courts and officials, I would have been all for upholding the rule of law, but right now it's more important to win because the other side uses the rule of law against us and we will lose if we unilaterally follow Marquess of Queensbury rules.
f) Government officials are mostly scum and we should cheer when one of them is under attack, regardless of who they are and what they are being attacked for.


I am for all of the above and against all of the above depending on context and who's votes I need.

Blogger VFM bot #188 July 10, 2015 9:24 AM  

The left bleats "obey the law" only as a tool, when useful. It has worked in the past because non-SJW's tend to be "law-abiding" in order to uphold civilization. But when "the law" becomes a lie and is used to tear down civilization, that comes to an end.

Blogger IM2L844 July 10, 2015 9:59 AM  

Court Clerks, generally, have a lot of friends and acquaintances with very high levels of legal expertise that is particularly germane to their specific local. I suspect this woman knows exactly what she is doing with regard to the law. The hissy fits are getting tedious.

Blogger Jehu July 10, 2015 11:46 AM  

Rhys,
It is jury nullification, its just nullification in a way that is difficult to retaliate or to defend against. I'm unlikely to use said impossible standard when Who...Whom does not apply.

Blogger SirThermite (VFM #0025) July 10, 2015 12:03 PM  

@rho

My sincere apologies for calling you a liar...got your comment mixed-up with those I'd read earlier from rip and just thought he was continuing his obtuseness. Reading comprehension and all that. Mea culpa.

Anonymous Mudsack July 10, 2015 1:03 PM  

Rip: "Mudsack, I accept your surrender."

Not so fast Rippy. I am pointing out that either way you go, above, you support evil. When confronted with an evil one fights the evil. One doesn't run away or hand the rifle to the enemy. Stay in the jury. Vote 'not guilty'. Tip your hat to the 'law', but ignore it. Muck up the works. Put sand in the gearbox and sugar in the gasoline. Irish Democracy. 'Se obedece per no se cumple'.

Blogger VFM bot #188 July 10, 2015 1:04 PM  

Irish democracy?

Anonymous Tom Joad July 10, 2015 2:17 PM  

County clerks in many states are also responsible for filing orders and participating in divorce proceedings. The Bible speaks much more forcibly against divorce than it does against same-sex anything.

Should county clerks be able to opt out of doing their jobs in divorce proceedings because it violates their religious conscience?

The facts are simple: If your religion prohibits you from fulfilling your job requirements, then you should resign.

Anonymous Discard July 10, 2015 2:28 PM  

The fact is simple: If your religion prohibits you from fulfilling your job requirements, then you should change your job requirements.

This is a struggle for power between humans and leftists. Fighting by the old rules that humans invented and leftists only observe when it strengthens their hand is suicide.

Anonymous Rip July 10, 2015 6:52 PM  

28. Edd Jobs July 09, 2015 4:24 PM

given that her conscience obviously prohibits her ability to perform her duties as a public servant

Kentucky has both statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. She is following the law and doing her duty.


So, Edd, you respond to my initial comment - which never addressed homosexual marriage specifically - with this statement, yet you actually DID read the OP and knew that she was, in fact, refusing to issue licenses to heterosexual couples as well? If so, then I stand corrected for accusing you of not doing so. I really thought that someone making this statement would have been doing so out of ignorance rather than just either being too stupid to get that or lying by omission to try and further their argument. Thanks for clearing that up.

Jack - my answer is "c", the state has no business in the regulation of marriage. Again, when you dance with the devil he will get his due. This is exactly why I am opposed to political states, there is no reality whereby you cede the monopoly power for the initiation of violence to an entity controlled by humans and have things work out any way other than they way they always have. This one thread is rife with examples of the inherent hypocrisy of statists - they're "for" the law so long as they agree with it, then they are against it. OK, fine, but remember the ultimate truism with respect to the state, whatever it does for you, it can do to you (or against you, either way). Now we have people on here blatantly trying to argue that this lady is not derelict in her elected duties because feels, and shall, and yeah, whatever. Let's disregard well over a century of actual precedent because, feels. LOL. This is exactly what the SJWs do.

BTW, for whomever accused me of making this thread boring - I accept your surrender, as it is obviously interesting enough for a bunch of midwits to try and parse clearly written words and years and years of precedent because, feels.

Zen - your question makes no sense. I said it is morally wrong. You are now asking if it is legally wrong to enforce an, um, legally enacted law. Of course it isn't legally wrong, that's a contradiction in terms.

Blogger JCclimber July 10, 2015 8:25 PM  

Still waiting to see the legally passed law that says that the Clerk MUST issue licenses....

Anonymous Jack Amok July 10, 2015 9:04 PM  

Jack - my answer is "c", the state has no business in the regulation of marriage.

So why do you have a problem with a county clerk refusing to let the state participate in the regulation of marriage?

Blogger Michael Z. Williamson July 11, 2015 2:38 AM  

Yeah, remember when the feminists forced the Catholic Church to ordain women?

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

Remember when "conservatives" refused to issue marriage licenses to mixed race couples? As recently as two years ago?

Blogger RAH July 11, 2015 2:46 PM  

There is a contradiction in how SCOTUS decisions are implemented. In the Heller case DC only had to approve Heller request for gun permit immediately. They had months to come up with a new licensing system. So why doesn't the States have time to redo their marriage licensing systems?

Blogger Marissa July 11, 2015 5:34 PM  

Feminists can't force the Catholic Church to ordain women, it's literally impossibly, you fruitcake.

Anonymous Rip July 11, 2015 6:54 PM  

apparently back in 1975 they ran across the breed of stupid we are seeing in this thread and passed another law which actually makes neglecting the duties "clearly inherent in the nature of his office" illegal. Now I suppose we will stoop to parsing that it says "his" rather than "hers"......

You really can't fix stupid

Anonymous Rip July 11, 2015 7:02 PM  

Personally, I couldn't care less.

Anonymous Rip July 11, 2015 7:06 PM  

Yeah, your not caring is obvious. Lol.

Blogger Groot July 13, 2015 12:21 AM  

Rip, I think many of the people on this thread would agree with you if you weren't so busy spitting in their eye. You're not being clear. Calm down, gather those to your side rhetorically who naturally should be there. If you're being misinterpreted, consider the possibility that what seems to you like cold and unassailable logic sounds instead, to others, like something else and amend something. It'll help you.

Blogger VFM bot #188 July 13, 2015 8:19 AM  

Actually, this entire thread---and the ongoing battle between Rip and everyone else (although some echoed Rip's position early-on)---is fascinating. That is so because the dispute nicely illustrates the dilemma faced by any "targeted" group when the power of the State is brought to bear. The lady clerk in Kentucky is being directly targeted by "Rainbow Nazis" utilizing the power of the State. (People who read and approve of the view at Vox Populi are targeted indirectly.)

Rip, who is correct in his legal statements and claims to be an anarchist, says that the clerk---who is refusing to issue any marriage licenses to either heterosexual or homosexual applicants---has no option other than to resign, since her position "by law" requires her to issue marriage licenses. Most everyone else here make arguments in support of the clerk's refusal to perform the duties she is legally obligated to perform.

No one who opposes Rip's position claims to be an anarchist, yet it is they who argue "she should disobey the law." Rip, who apparently *is* a philosophical anarchist, argues that the clerk must obey the law or resign, so someone else can take the position who *will* obey and carry out the law.

Someone asked Rip if civil servants in 1930's Germany should have resigned if they didn't want to enforce the newly-passed laws restricting and punishing Jewish people in various ways. Rip's response to that must be yes, because people who voluntarily take positions with the State are obligated to faithfully execute laws imposed by that State (not a very anarchist position). Everyone else is saying "screw the law, stay in the office and refuse to enforce it" (a very anarchist position).

This nicely frames the quandary faced by people who wish to resist the onrush of state power by "Rainbow Nazis". The clerk in Kentucky will lose and the ACLU will sin. She will be legally removed from her position, just as public school administrators who opposed public school integration were removed from their public positions in the past.

But that's not the question, is it. The question Vox has posed is "how far can the power of the State be extended before provoking a generalized backlash?" It may be that there is no limit to how far State power---now in the hands of the Rainbow Nazis---can be extended. If so, the end of the process will resemble Soviet Russia (if you were a non-communist), Nazi Germany (if you were a Jew), or North Korea (if you're a human being).

The alternative? The one where violent resistance occurs? No one agrees on what will happen. It could be generalized disregard of the law, aka "Irish Democracy". Or it could mean organized civil war (probably through one or more state secessions). Or it could mean some kind of organized putsch (by *either* side). Or it could mean a ghastly----possibly genocidal---war of groups against groups such as occurred in the Balkans after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

I don't propose an answer. Just clearly framing the situation.

Anonymous Rip July 13, 2015 3:39 PM  

@VFM - See my post earlier regarding the inherent hypocrisy in statism. I'll disagree that staying in office would be a very anarchist position, though, as a political anarchist wouldn't be in office in the first place.

Groot - I posted a pretty generic statement initially regarding the clerk in question's refusal to do her job. It wasn't until other posters attempted (poorly, I might add) to refute my factual statement and prove me wrong that I 'spat in their eyes', and I honestly don't care if I offend morons that can't bother to learn basic reading and comprehension skills before calling someone else a liar simply because they don't like the facts being presented.

Blogger Groot July 13, 2015 6:59 PM  

@162. VFM bot #188: I am much more sanguine about outcomes. I see wave after wave of technology giving us additional freedoms, maybe two steps forward and one step back, but relentlessly. We now have the internet, AM radio, cable TV, the unleashing of independent publishing, out of print tomes on liberty brought back to "print," and soon end-to-end encryption, crypto currencies, and all the rest that's coming so quickly. That's why I have so much fun here, looking forward to the fun that is to come.

@Rip: No, you should care. Being effective rhetorically, even if polemically, is a help to our side. I believe Vox claims a readership of millions. Many lurk. Educate and persuade.

Blogger cynthia joy July 15, 2015 2:06 AM  

Im not able to enjoy this site properly on flock I think there is a problem.I had this page saved some time previously TestoEdge 20 but my notebook crashed. I have since gotten a new one and it took me a while to come across this! I also in fact like the template though.http://www.supplements4help.com/testoedge20/

Blogger Poetryman July 16, 2015 1:44 PM  

The fabled rainbow of doom.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts