Homophobic holier-than-thou county clerk defies court order, enjoys playing the martyr

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/ky-clerk-defies-court-refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/

UPDATE: She's in jail now: BREAKING: Kim Davis Held In Contempt Of Court, Now In U.S. Marshals’ Custody

Comments

[fieryphoenix.livejournal.com]

One of my favorite smell tests for issues like this (for those who are otherwise unconvinced) is to substitute some variables. Imagine she went to get her n^th marriage license, but was denied by a Catholic county clerk on the grounds of not having had her previous divorce properly annulled.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

A bit rich coming from a divorced person.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

She reminds me of the guy who tried to get free food in restaurants, saying "Jesus already paid for this."

[immemor.livejournal.com]

Haha - if that worked I'd convert.

[rose-cat.livejournal.com]

Honestly, how has this woman not been fired yet? Do your job or get another one!

[skittish-derby.livejournal.com]

I heard that she has to be impeached, as she was voted into this position (and running as a democrat to boot!)

[catlin.livejournal.com]

In order to impeach her, they have to convene the state court senate. That means either waiting, or a special session, and they won't spend the money on special session.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

As has already been mentioned, she's an elected official, so she can't be fired. She can be impeached, but only the KY state legislature can do that. In the meantime it looks like she's probably going to be prosecuted for official misconduct, which is the first stop in that direction. The article I linked in the o.p. has lots of details.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

She should do her job in this case, but calling her a hypocrite is a little out of bounds. She's a recent convert, not a lifelong Christian.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

That's part of the issue, IMO. It's often the newly converted (much like the newly sober and those who have newly quit smoking) who are the most strident about enforcing their own personal choices on others.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

A lot of us consider her a hypocrite because she's claiming that she can't issue same-sex marriage licenses because it's against the Bible--but at the same time she's been divorced multiple times and is on her fourth marriage, which is every bit as much against biblical teachings as same sex marriage.

Also, she doesn't seem to have ever felt compelled to abide by the biblical proscriptions against divorce (or any other biblical teachings concerning marriage) in deciding who to issue marriage license to; but now that teh gayz want to get married, she suddenly HAS to follow the Bible to the letter? Oh, really? what about all the other stuff the Bible says is sinful that she's been cheerfully ignoring? THAT stuff is obviously okay with her, and I'd bet money that the REAL reason is because that stuff doesn't creep her out like those icky gayz and their icky gay sex.

I'm not saying she's being CONSCIOUSLY hypocritical. But claiming she can't go against the Bible, while cherry picking which PARTS of the Bible she can't go against is nagl, at the very least, and looks an awful lot like hypocrisy to an awful lot of folks.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A lot of us consider her a hypocrite because she's claiming that she can't issue same-sex marriage licenses because it's against the Bible--but at the same time she's been divorced multiple times and is on her fourth marriage, which is every bit as much against biblical teachings as same sex marriage.

And she came to these beliefs later in life, after her divorces. It's not hypocritical in this case.

Also, she doesn't seem to have ever felt compelled to abide by the biblical proscriptions against divorce (or any other biblical teachings concerning marriage) in deciding who to issue marriage license to; but now that teh gayz want to get married, she suddenly HAS to follow the Bible to the letter?

No, this is not that recent.

But claiming she can't go against the Bible, while cherry picking which PARTS of the Bible she can't go against is nagl, at the very least, and looks an awful lot like hypocrisy to an awful lot of folks.

Which parts, since her conversion, do you believe she's cherry-picking?

[usekh.livejournal.com]

I don't know the duties of her position aside from marriage licenses, but does she have anything to do with divorce or firearms licensing as two examples

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

On the former, I don't think she issues divorce licenses.

On the latter, I don't see what firearms licensing would have to do with this if she was involved at all.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

On the former, I don't think she issues divorce licenses.


No, but the hypocrisy point on divorce is that she marries people who have been divorced.
Jesus prohibited that, with the only exception for sexual infidelity.

Matthew 19

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not really sure how she'd know, nor do I know if there's a line on the Kentucky form about it to know, so the only way we could really call it hypocritical is if she knew the circumstances and went with it anyway.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

You have a point; however, I think there is a case to be made for at least an undercurrent of hypocrisy being at work here, and I therefore still feel that the "hypocrisy" tag is appropriate.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

It would appear (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475), as a matter of fact, that Kentucky law requires specifying one's status as "divorced," as well as the number of previous marriages. So, in fact, Kim would have to know the circumstances and have gone along with it anyway.

You're stuck on a dilemma, Jeff. One horn - Kim is a hypocrite who issues licenses to people who've been divorced, despite doing so being as contrary to her beliefs as issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Or, she's a hypocrite who adheres rigidly to some portions of her chosen religious text while ignoring others - apparently in whatever way suits her and her desire for a high-profile martyrdom.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that. I tried looking up the form, but didn't have much sucess.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I couldn't find forms, as such, either. I get the sense that each county might be responsible for its own forms, which they just keep in their offices in physical form (since "applying" requires doing so in person). But the law I linked specifies what elements the application form would have to include.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

There's a fun meta-point here, too, insofar as the argument you're making is that Kim is potentially not guilty of hypocrisy in the case of divorce because, while her actions are as facilitative in re-marrying divorced individuals as they are in marrying same-sex couples, she might not be aware that that's what she's doing - thereby avoiding moral culpability under her chosen worldview. In that, her convenient ignorance is a little like yours - you purport not to actually know what the Kentucky form says, and relying on that ignorance you defend her, apparently rationally. But it turns out your ignorance shields you from being aware of her actual hypocrisy! How, then, are we to judge you? As ignorant of your own ignorance?

[usekh.livejournal.com]

On the latter, I don't see what firearms licensing would have to do with this if she was involved at all.

Not surprised. It is an example of cherry picking. Jesus had a lot more to say about non-violence than gay marriage. Of course that is one of the most ignored parts of his message. So if her newly found deep seated Christian beliefs stop her from issuing licenses to same sex couples...

Of course not sure she does. Either way if she can't do the job she ran for and is paid for she should resign.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Yes, but did Jesus ever say anything against cherry-picking?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not surprised. It is an example of cherry picking. Jesus had a lot more to say about non-violence than gay marriage.

So the only reason one would have a gun permit is for violent purposes?

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Well you don't use them to till the soil or build a house.

[phildegrave]

And she came to these beliefs later in life, after her divorces. It's not hypocritical in this case.

This is a distinction without a difference. God intended her to remain married to her first husband, regardless of when she converted, which means she is committing adultery every time she fornicates with her current hubby.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So you don't believe that there's a such thing as Christian reconciliation?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

"Christian reconciliation" is a matter of forgiving sins. It has no bearing on remarriage. In some Christian traditions, re-marrying after divorce isn't possible, not because divorce is some unforgivable sin, but because the prior act of marriage makes it impossible to marry someone else. In that way, it's as impossible as a same-sex couple "marrying."

You should know this, Jeff. Didn't you attend a religious college? If you are part of a Christian tradition that believes that you can't re-marry after a divorce, you don't go to reconciliation in order to be able to re-marry. You do something like seek an annulment of the initial marriage - which itself doesn't so much "undo" the prior marriage as acknowledge that it never really existed.

[phildegrave]

So you don't believe that there's a such thing as Christian reconciliation?

Since I haven't been a Christian for the last 30+ years I guess I would have to say I don't. It doesn't really matter what I believe, though. It's what she believes that makes her a hypocrite.

Since you brought it up, my understanding of the concept is that reconciliation absolves the past sins of the believer. It does not give the believer blanket permission to continue to sin with impunity in perpetuity. "Go and sin no more" is what Jesus told the adulterous woman.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

. It does not give the believer blanket permission to continue to sin with impunity in perpetuity. "Go and sin no more" is what Jesus told the adulterous woman.

So how is she sinning now?

[phildegrave]

So how is she sinning now?

By fornicating with husband #4.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And how is that hypocritical now? Remember, reconciliation is a thing.

[phildegrave]

Are you saying reconciliation annuls her prior marriages? If so you need to back that up with a cite.

If not, then regardless of her forgiven past sins, her religion does not recognize divorce, meaning she is still married to #1, meaning she is committing adultery with #4.

[phildegrave]

FWIW The Westboro Baptist Church apparently doesn't believe in reconciliation.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

And remember, reconciliation doesn't annul a marriage. So, she's "sinning" now by having sex outside the bounds of her first marriage.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The hypocrisy angle is good, but I think it falls on deaf ears when it comes to believers. "We're all sinners. Two wrongs don't make a right."

Better is to frame it this way:

"Do you think a Quaker County Clerk should be able to deny you a firearms permit based on his sincerely held religious belief against "weapons that are never appropriate for civilized use?"

"Do you think a Muslim County Clerk should be able to deny a woman a driver's license because he agrees with certain Islamic scholars' opinions against women drivers?"

If they answer no, then they should be able to see what's wrong with Kim Davis' stance. If they answer yes... well, then they're advocating living in a world where law is meaningless, and personal belief trumps all other concerns, and that's so far down the rabbit hole that no further constructive conversation is possible. Just slowly back away.

[garote]

Thank you Lambda Legal legal director Jon Davidson!

[planet-x-zero.livejournal.com]

I heard she was getting death threats. At least there's some comfort in knowing that.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

No one deserves death threats, even someone as homophobic and mind-blisteringly wrong about Constitutional government as Kim Davis.

What she deserves is to be found in contempt of court, to be impeached, and to face the specific legal consequences for what she has done. She also deserves to be removed from that job (by whatever legal methods are appropriate in this circumstance) so that someone else can do the job that she was supposed to be doing as required by law.

---

Aside: apart from being morally repugnant, death threats only play into her narrative. She can just say: "Look! Timothy 3:12 proves that I am doing the right thing!" Her "oh-poor-martyr-me" status is going to keep her solvent for years to come, between the inevitable book she'll write ("Courage of my Convictions" will be the title, I'm guessing, ghost written by one of the usual suspects,) the radio and TV talk show circuit, and the GoFundMe account that will likely spring up any day now.

The only people who lose out here are the folks who have to continue to wait to get married, and the taxpayers whose money is going to go towards paying the legal fees incurred by the office of this stubborn woman.

[planet-x-zero.livejournal.com]

It's been a while. I'm not used to being taken seriously -- I don't approve of the death threats or violence.

You're absolutely right--just as the law progressed towards Obergefell v. Hodges, this woman will eventually be removed through legal means. President Obama spoke very eloquently on how political change usually comes slow -- these god squad kooks will be removed, but it may take time.

[garote]

Indeed. The only real option left for her at this point is to double-down on her own fanaticism. Anything else would deny her the access to the "good" things - book deal, crowdfunding - while leaving the "bad" things - internet dishonor, unemployment - unchanged.

In a way, the intensity of our own negative attention is worsening the outcome.

[hindustar.livejournal.com]

I am kind of glad it was jail instead of a fine because no one can go to jail for her, but her fine would have been happily paid for her by other people.

5 of her clerks said they would start issuing the licenses. =)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Her son is a clerk in that office and he's not issuing anything.
So I wonder will he be jailed too?

[hindustar.livejournal.com]

As far as I know he didn't go to jail but didn't have to answer the question of if he would or not. He was recused since Kim is his mom. I am assuming he won't be going to work. *shrug*