“I’m no hero.”

No, you’re not, Kim Davis.

I know, I’m breaking my own self-imposed rule by writing about this toad, but considering she has been screeching in the media about how she’s all victimy and stuff, I figured I’d clear up a few things.

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis says marriage licenses are being issued in Rowan County without her authority and she wants her name and title removed.

And when the deputy clerks issue licenses with her name removed, this entitled bitch says, “uh-uh!” The licenses may not be valid without her signature.

She would object to the documents noting that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,” and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority.

So, translation: I am the Clerk. I refuse to resign, because I’m entitled to my job and my $80,000/year salary. But I refuse to have legal documents issued under my authority, but I won’t resign and allow others to issue them under theirs.

Essentially, she’s holding the issue hostage.


Now, y’all know I’ve defended Christians and their right to hold their beliefs. My stance on churches performing gay marriages has always been and remains that any church should be free to deny or perform the religious ceremony for gay couples (much like any baker, photographer, etc. as a private citizen should have the right to deny any client for any reason, no matter how ignorant), and any congregants who disagree with their church’s actions on the issue can find a new place of worship. Everyone wins. No government interference. The church officials follow their own consciences on the issue, and the worshipers do as well.

This, however, has nothing to do with this toad’s religious freedom, and here’s why:

As the County Clerk, she is the government. She is part of said government. She is required to issue legal documents. Note, these licenses are not religious documents. They are legal ones. No one is asking her to approve of the union. No one is asking her to perform a religious ceremony. She is required – as part of her job – to issue legal documents to people – people who pay her $80,000 salary. If she cannot in good conscience do her job, she should resign.

But… But… But… Kentucky passed an amendment to its state constitution banning gay marriages and unions, and 10th Amendment!

Well, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By using her authority as Clerk, Davis is doing exactly that. Gays are persons. They are also taxpayers who pay her salary. She is denying them equal protection under the law, as is the Kentucky State Constitution. And she is doing so, even as she draws her salary from them.

But… but… but… putting her name on a license signifies her endorsement of gay marriage, and therefore violates her religious freedom!

No, it doesn’t. It is not a religious act she is being asked to perform, and even though the Kentucky State Constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,

As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.

Surprisingly, the Washington Post analysis I cited above actually supports Davis’ view and says if she believes “that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA.” The only problem with this is that if her name is removed as the clerk, then the licenses issues may very well be invalid, and once again, she is holding the process hostage to her religious beliefs.

Look, there are some complex legal issues here, and no one is denying this. This is one reason why government involvement in marriage is such a ridiculous idea, and why I’m a huge proponent of getting the government – whether federal or state – out of the issue altogether.

People who want to spend their lives together should be free to do so. They should be free to leave their estates to one another. They should be free to have children together and raise them with love and care. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital without showing a state-issued marriage certificate, and they should certainly be able to receive the flag from the casket of their loved one when said loved one is killed in action!

No one should be forced – and yes, government is force – to perform a religious ceremony, bake a cake, take wedding photographs, or create wedding bands for any ceremony they find religiously objectionable.

But to turn the tables, no government official – and make no mistake, that Davis toad is a government official – should have the right to deny equal treatment under the law to any taxpayer, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on said taxpayers by refusing to step down, since legally it might be that she’s the only one who is authorized by law to sign those legal documents. What she is saying is, “I will not sign these legal documents. I will not allow my name to be on them. But I won’t step aside and allow anyone else’s name to be on them either.”

As I said, it’s not about her religious freedom. It’s about everyone else’s right to be free from her religious views.

If this toad had any integrity at all, she would turn down the $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers, that includes gay ones. But no… she’s fine with taking their tax dollars, but not fine with providing to them the services she was hired to provide?

Nope. Unacceptable. Unacceptable morally and ethically. And hypocritical to boot!

No, she is not a martyr.

No, she is not a hero.

No, she cannot be compared to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. or any other civil rights hero, because she is using her government office to deny equal treatment under the law to consenting adults wishing to spend their lives together, and she is hiding behind her religion. Sorry. NO-GO! She’s not fighting for religious rights. Her religious rights have not been violated, unless you consider her right to hold a government job and draw an $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers a “right,” in which case, please just STAHP TALKING! No, she is not being punished for her religious beliefs. She is free to hold them. She is free to exercise them. She is free to worship as she pleases and to interpret her Bible in any way she wishes. What is is not free to do is use her government office to deny equal protections under the law to the very taxpayers who pay her fucking salary!

She is being punished for refusing to do her job, to which she doesn’t have a right. Get over it. This toad is no Rosa Parks.

As you can tell, I don’t think much of her as a person. I think she’s an attention whore. I think she’s a selfish twat, who if she had any integrity at all, would leave that cushy government job if she believed that something as simple as putting her name on a legal document (NOT A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT) violates her religious beliefs.

I know plenty of religious people who believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I may not agree with them, but I’m not religious, so that’s understandable. They should be free to hold those beliefs without governments penalizing them. They should be free to decline to perform a religious ceremony if it violates their beliefs. They should be free to decline to participate in said ceremony, if it violates their beliefs.

But what they are not and should not be free to do is deny others equal treatment under the law if they are government officials. And that is exactly what Davis is trying to do, while hiding behind her “I’m a religious person” shield!

You may differ with me on the assessment. You may even know more about the law than I do. I freely admit I’m not a lawyer. I also freely admit, my amateur legal assessment may be off. That said, what is NOT off is my assessment that for Davis to refuse to treat all taxpayers equally while gleefully taking home a rather large paycheck funded by them is immoral and unethical. Bakers who refuse to cater gay weddings don’t take money from gay couples to whom they refuse to provide a service. Same with photographers, and any other private companies that refuse to make that a part of their services. Kim Davis still draws that salary from taxpayers, while refusing to provide them with the services for which they pay, and refusing to step aside and allow another government official to do so. That makes her a hypocritical toad in my book.

Have fun trying to convince me otherwise.


74 responses

  1. This is along the lines of the Muslim airline attendant who refuses to serve alcoholic beverages (and she has the EEOC, who don’t bother pursuing real claims, eating out of her hand). IMO she should be fired.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree, but ultimately it’s between her and her employer. She’s not a government official, and she can’t be forced to perform her duties. If her employer deems that her religion puts an onus on her fellow employees, by forcing them to take on extra duties she won’t perform, or undue cost for the employer, trying to find her a position that won’t violate her religious principles, they should be free to fire her. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, here comes the EEOC… Sigh.

      Davis is not an employee with a private company. She IS the government, and denying gay Kentuckians legal documents available to everyone else makes her someone who is imposing her religious standards on others via government force.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. And here Nicki, you have hit the crux of several issues we’re confronted with and also an essential difference between Conservatives and Libertarians.

    Pretty much no one from either the Center or the Left understands or even much cares about the difference. They think we’re as monolithic as they are.

    The difference is between ultimate Religious liberty that would also reintroduce religious law (as opposed to law derived from our faith) to our country and the right of the people to live their lives free from government interference. It’s easy to point to the horrors of Sharia, not so easy to draw lines around sections of Biblical law that comes from our Judeo/Christian culture.

    I agree with you completely. When you accept certain purely secular jobs, you are bound by the job description.

    A huge mistake was made defining Gay Marriage as a political/social/legal issue, when it should have purely been a 1st Amendment issue. The words of the 1st Amendment are very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

    For all of human history, marriage has been purely a religious institution. It’s a blatant disregard of the 1st Amendment for government to regulate marriage, which is a religious function. I’ve always thought the bigamy laws could be challenged under 1st Amendment grounds.

    Last thought, it would be very dangerous for us to allow ourselves to be split over such issues in the upcoming election. As I see it, that’s about the only way the Democrats could prevail in 2016.

    I know it’s a dangerous area, but I’m still willing to sacrifice some philosophical purity for practical reality. Christian Conservatives will probably find their side of the compromise much more onerous than the compromises required of the Libertarians, while the Libertarians will be rightly concerned about opening the door for religious law to replace secular law. It’s a real problem. Where is a safe line we can all live with?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A huge mistake was made defining Gay Marriage as a political/social/legal issue, when it should have purely been a 1st Amendment issue. The words of the 1st Amendment are very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”


      Liked by 1 person

  3. Nikki .. I agree with you 99% of the time .. not on this one.

    1. Please cite the law she is in violation of
    2. SC overturned DOMA citing state rights 10th Amendment
    3. Then used the 14th to deny those rights w/ Hodges (not that the 14th is any way relevant)
    It’s the role of the SC to determine Constitutionality considering the context in which the amendments were ratified, not to act as our social conscience.

    “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    As DOMA was overturned because there is no mention of marriage in the Constitution, then by extension there is no “right” to marriage how can the 14th be used as no rights were deprived ?

    IMHO The SC missed the boat ..

    As to Davis .. as there is no statue forbidding her executing her 1st Amendment rights …..


    1. The 14th quoted exactly says states shall not deny “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      By refusing to issue a legal document to people who pay her salary via their taxes, that is exactly what she did.

      Additionally, do you really believe that only the rights mentioned in the Constitution are rights? The Constitution mentions fundamental rights. When it comes to rights, I agree with Walter Williams.

      “At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.”

      Two gay guys want to get married. They’re both consenting adults. They bring no harm to anyone. They are denied a legal document confirming their union by a frothing psycho government official. That obligation of non-interference has just been violated.


      1. You’ve not cited the law Davis is in violation of … if there isn’t one there is no equal protection issue.

        My inference to “rights” was merely to demonstrate how convoluted the SC decisions were DOMA vs Hodges.

        My or Williams interpretation of “rights” is irrelevant .. it’s the SC’s responsibility to rule based on the rights afforded by the Constitution. If a right such as gay marriage is not cited .. it should be amended to recognize that right as it was for voting rights. It’s not the SC’s place to wave a magic wand creating a precedent which the country now believes erroneously is the “law of the land”


        1. She is in violation of 1) a court order not to be a tyrannical government cunt 2) the 14th Amendment.

          SCOTUS’ responsibility is to be the highest appeal court in the land and to interpret the Constitution. Interpretation is a wide swath, which is why we have case law. That certainly doesn’t mean that the SC has to only focus on the enumerated rights that are codified in that particular text. If they did, we could conceivably be living in a pretty nasty dictatorship.


    2. Given that marriage is a legal contract, the 14th Amendment is quite clear on this issue. Thus, every case that I can remember, seeking to restrict this civil liberty….has failed to even pass the Rational Basis test.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. “As DOMA was overturned because there is no mention of marriage in the Constitution, then by extension there is no “right” to marriage how can the 14th be used as no rights were deprived ?”

      The Constitution is NOT a list of the Rights of the People. It is a set of restrictions on the powers of Government, with many (maybe most) Rights specifically NOT enumerated. See Amendments 9 & 10, then read the Federalist papers.


  4. C.I. — Interesting point .. need to digest that one ..


  5. Of course she’s “entitled to the job”. Her mother held it for 40 odd years. . .


  6. There is no Constitutional “right to marry” whomever or whatever turns you on sexually. Therefore, “gays” have ALWAYS had the identical rights as non-gays to “marry”–with precisely the identical restrictions. To “marry” in this country, one must choose a consenting adult, non-close relative of the opposite sex. Nothing has prevented “gays” from marrying under those conditions, therefore there is no such thing as “unequal treatment” in the issue of marriage, so even if the 14th Amendment WAS valid (it’s not, by the way, since the intent was to protect ex-slaves from State discrimination and assert THEIR Constitutional rights) it doesn’t apply to the issue of “marriage,” which is a STATE issue, re: The 10th Amendment.


    1. And you still make the error of assuming that it’s all about sex. It’s difficult to debate this issue with you, because you believe what you believe and nothing can change your mind. I’m not trying to be mean to you. I’m simply stating that when you refuse to even attempt to objectively see all sides of an issue, and simply repeat the same thing over and over again about your view of marriage and its alleged equality, it becomes a moot point debating. Again, not trying to offend you. Another commenter above said he disagreed with me, but he is open-minded enough to think the 14th amendment issue through, after CI and I both mentioned it. I see no such opening with you. The legal contract should be legal no matter with whom you choose to spend your life. It is a legal contract – afforded to all citizens – ergo the 14th applies. If that portion was only intended for freed slaves, it would not specify “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


    2. There is no Constitutional “right to marry” whomever or whatever turns you on sexually.

      Exactly right. Not that anyone is making that argument, or that it has anything to do with sexual arousal. As there is no right to marry found in the Constitution, there is no legal proscription regarding gender. Thus, the argument against marriage equality has failed to meet the Constitutional bar of scrutiny, time and again.

      Per the 14th Amendment [Equal Protection Clause]: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      In order for same sex marriage to be regarded as some sort of ‘special privilege’ it must be shown that there is no unequal treatment per this clause. The side opposed to SSM has abjectly failed.


    3. I merely believe that a LOT of evil has been done under color of the 14th Amendment and it’s somewhat mystical “Equal Protection” clause. When you read the debates leading up to its passage, it’s CLEAR that it was intended ONLY to ratify and insure the Constitutional rights of former slaves…period. I have no problem with gays living together AS IF “married,” but I resent changing by fiat the definition of what a “marriage” actually IS.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. What they get is a LEGAL document. It’s secular in nature. And they are entitled to the same legal recognition as anyone else. There’s no “as if.” Personally, I want government out of the marriage business altogether. It’s a legal contract. I don’t see why there should be government permission to marry or engage in any other private activity.


    4. CI – By what passes for your “logic” then, any two consenting adults should be allowed to “marry”. Right? So one old man who draws the bare minimum of Social Security should be able to “marry” another old man (both of them hetero) who draws the MAXIMUM in Social Security in order to upgrade his “take” because a retired “spouse” is entitled to HALF of the amount drawn by the other spouse or to his/her own entitlement–whichever is greater–and can draw ALL of his/her spouses entitlement after the spouse dies.


    5. pappad – Sorry I missed this until now. What you describe is no different than what can already occur in heterosexual marriages. It seems hardly a rational basis to deny a consensual contract.


  7. Sorry we have a court making law that it has no authority to make. The clerk is obeying the law that exists, not the pixie dust the courts wishes us to believe is the law. Where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court have the authority to make law or even make it the supreme authority of the law?

    Thank God for people willing to stand up to usupers.


    1. The clerk is doing no such thing. She is refusing to issue a SECULAR LEGAL DOCUMENT to people who are entitled to equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment Period.


    2. SCOUTS did not make law; it ruled on the Constitutionality of marriage laws that restricted the right of contract, regarding gender.


  8. If she were working for herself and being told she had to do something contrary to her beliefs I’d support her. But she’s working for someone else and therefore must abide by the expectations under which she was hired. In this case, she’s working for the people and is expected to conform to the law, fulfilling all duties as required even if those duties have been redefined since she was elected. She’s in the wrong.

    I know many law enforcement officers that don’t agree with the laws they are required to uphold. But they still must uphold them or be found derelict in their duty.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If she were working for herself and being told she had to do something contrary to her beliefs I’d support her.

      Completely agree. A citizen should have a right to one’s laboring private enterprise. Government employee….follow the law, or take your labor elsewhere.


    2. Of course, that should have read “labor in” rather than “laboring”……


      1. close enough for government work

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Pun intended? LOL


    3. Funny. However, she holds an ELECTED position. The only people who can “fire” her are those who ELECTED her in the first place and she CAN’T be “forced to resign” because some people disagree with her decision–not “all” by any means. You keep citing the 14th Amendment and it simply does NOT apply here…or in most matters where it’s been cited in recent years. For example, it does NOT confer automatic “citizenship” on some baby dropped by an illegal with 1 foot inside the U.S.–or 1000 MILES inside, for that matter.


      1. Was that supposed to be directed to me? I never referenced the 14th Amendment, nor firing, nor for resigning. If she’s unwilling to fulfill her duties I think she should resign. If she still refuses she should be recalled. Not sure how the law is written in KY, but around here even elected officials can be dismissed by the governor if they are derelict.


  9. There is no convincing you when you’ve stubbornly made up your mind. But I will point out a few errors in your analysis.

    1. Your whole argument here is built on the foundation that the Supreme Court’s decision is both legal and just. It isn’t for a myriad of reasons – not the least of which is that the Fourteenth Amendment isn’t about equal access to marriage licenses but freed slaves. The Court’s decision has now opened a whole Pandora’s box – all of which only adds to the power of the Supreme Court to arbitrarily rule as an oligarchy of nine people. In short, this ruling is tyranny, not interpretation.

    2. As a result of the Supreme Court’s idiotic activism, States have a real legal quandary. Davis is right: the State of Kentucky has a problem legally since it has an internal prohibition against gay marriage in its Constitution but the Federal government is forcing its fiat down the throats of the States without giving them sufficient time to respond. Tyranny anyone?

    3. Trampling on the religious rights of a government employee is a serious matter. Ms. Davis is being forced to violate her religious beliefs – and it seems THOSE beliefs should be jettisoned because she is a “public servant.” Fine. But I also notice how this is a policy being arbitrarily enforced. For example, what about prosecuting mayors and city councils that create “sanctuary cities” because of their religious beliefs in helping the poor and powerless?

    4. Finally, the obvious solution to this problem isn’t even being discussed because too many people are trying to both hoist their ideas of “equality” and “fairness” on the same flagpole with government power. It’s time for government to get out of the marriage license business altogether. This is nothing more than intrusion of Big Brother into the private lives of consenting adults. It’s none of the government’s business.

    I’m not engaging in a theological or religious debate about homosexuality – my opposition to both the Supreme Court’s decision and the idea of licensing gay (or any other) marriage aren’t based on my role as a religious leader. This whole issue is political to me – the way the government is forcing itself onto the people isn’t about fairness or equality. Quite the opposite. It’s tyranny. And in THAT perspective, Kim Davis is right to oppose the legal brutality of the court against the people of Kentucky, her little municipality, and even herself.

    You can question her motives or the role she plays as an elected official, sworn to carry out the law (though so many of these memes are so harsh and judgmental…and from people who tell us not to judge others.) Fine. But in the end, none of that conversation detracts from the fundamental philosophical and legal problems raised by government’s meddling in something that’s private.

    So I hope at least you can understand why principled and honest people see the issue differently and can respect the substantive nature of our support for the actions of Ms. Davis.


    PS: I respect differing opinions and points of view – and relish debate and even hyperbolic conflict of substance. But I have zero tolerance for either gay-bashing or bigotry against people of faith. Both are sad and extremist features of this current debate. So critique substance all you want, but I refuse to empower hate with response.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Him, I have already substantively addressed all your arguments in both the blog post itself and the comments. This has nothing to do with religion – other than her use of her religion to deny people basic legal services – legal services for which they pay with their taxes, by the way.

      The issuance of a legal document is not private. It is done by the government, which is why I’m a big proponent of government staying out of marriage altogether, but that’s wishful thinking and neither here nor there.

      SCOTUS made the correct decision to invalidate something that had prevented some people from getting the same legal protections as others. Nothing more, nothing less. It did NOT create a right.I did not do anything other than rule a particular law unconstitutional, which, as the highest court of appeals in the land, is its job.

      But I want to address two things:

      1. “So I hope at least you can understand why principled and honest people see the issue differently and can respect the substantive nature of our support for the actions of Ms. Davis” – I HOPE that the implication here is not that I’m neither principled nor honest. I think I have explained my positions very well, and they are consistent with my views that NO ONE should be allowed to use government force to prevent others from being treated equally.

      2. Where have I displayed hate in this post? Where have I bashed people of faith. I despise THIS particular person, because as I have amply shown, she is using said faith to ensure that gay people are not treated equally under the law. But I have not – in any way, shape or form – bashed people of faith writ large here.

      The issue is very simple. A marriage license is a legal document. She took an oath to uphold both state AND federal laws. She decided she didn’t like the federal law, so she used her religion as an excuse not to uphold it. She was not prevented from holding the views she holds. She was not punished for exercising her religion. If you read the court’s ruling, it specifically stated that she is free to exercise said religion any way she chooses. She is not required to provide a religious service. Her approval of the union is neither required nor wanted. She is free to condemn the union as a private individual. What she is NOT free to do is use her government position to impose those views on others. A marriage license is NOT a religious document. It is a legal one. And as such, she is required to issue them to couples. If she will not, or she uses her government position to prevent said legal document from being issued, she needs to step aside. Period.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I would never question Nicki’s principles or honesty. I simply think she’s wrong to effectively condemn this woman’s honesty and principles in the terms her original blog used. The SCOTUS is NOT the final word. The Constitution is, and I think the 14th Amendment is being misused in THIS issue as it has in the anchor baby issue.


  10. not the least of which is that the Fourteenth Amendment isn’t about equal access to marriage licenses but freed slaves.

    I’m not certain why people are making this argument. The 14th Amendment addresses the rights of the citizen. It’s genesis in 1868, from the Civil War and emancipation, do not in any manner restrict protections to a class of people who no longer exist. It is binding on the actions of the State with regard to all citizens.

    …..Federal government is forcing its fiat down the throats of the States without giving them sufficient time to respond. Tyranny anyone?

    No less tyrannical than denying civil liberty and the access to consensual contracts to one’s fellow citizens based solely upon a personal, and intangible belief system.

    Trampling on the religious rights of a government employee is a serious matter.

    Indeed it is, but Mrs. Davis entered into an employment contract [as well as swore an oath] to carry out the lawful duties of her position, without discrimination [or trampling if you will] upon the equal access to government services. It’s not so much that she personally refused to carry out these duties, but that she mandated the staff of her office to do likewise. Thus, she sought to levy her belief system upon non-consenting subordinates.

    It’s time for government to get out of the marriage license business altogether. This is nothing more than intrusion of Big Brother into the private lives of consenting adults.

    I couldn’t agree more wholeheartedly.

    ….the way the government is forcing itself onto the people isn’t about fairness or equality.

    But respectfully, with this logic……you must surely concede that legislation prohibiting SSM [and homosexual statement and conduct for that matter] throughout our nation’s history…have been just as much, the State forcing itself onto the people, no? And that surely, you can see why honest and principled people see the issue differently than yourself, or that you may have errors in your analysis?


    1. Ms Davis has an absolute right to her religious principles…whether ANYONE else agrees with them or not. (1st Amendment) The SCOTUS does NOT have the right or authority to invent a “right to marry” out of whole cloth and insert it into the Constitution “unilaterally.” (10th Amendment) Therefore the SCOTUS is wrong here…not Ms Davis. What is the “equal protection clause” “protecting” here? A non-existent “right” to marry whomever or whatever one desires?


      1. “Ms Davis has an absolute right to her religious principles…whether ANYONE else agrees with them or not. (1st Amendment) ” – no one has argued otherwise.

        “The SCOTUS does NOT have the right or authority to invent a “right to marry” out of whole cloth and insert it into the Constitution “unilaterally.” (10th Amendment) Therefore the SCOTUS is wrong here…not Ms Davis.” – that would be the case IF that is what SCOTUS did, which it is not.

        “What is the “equal protection clause” “protecting” here? A non-existent “right” to marry whomever or whatever one desires?” — it is protecting the right of anyone to enter into a legal contract, regardless of gender. Period.


        1. Then CALL it what it is…a CONTRACT…not a “marriage.”

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Pappad…Nobody is arguing that Mrs. Davis does not have a right to her religious principles; to the extent that this argument constitutes a strawman, Marriage is a contract. Given that very real fact, please explain the rational basis for denying the access to a legal contract based on gender. Government at any level, does not have the “right to invent” a proscription based on whim, emotion or tradition….without a rational basis. Additionally, Kim Davis does not have a ‘right’ to deny lawful government services to the constituents of a jurisdiction, based upon her religious principles.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Then CALL it what it is…a CONTRACT…not a “marriage.” The “solution” is as simple as that.


    4. Then CALL it what it is…a CONTRACT…not a “marriage.” The “solution” is as simple as that.

      Fine by me. Start lobbying your elected representatives.


      1. Not necessary since the term “marriage” is well-understood in every country and culture on the planet…a civil or religious union between a man and a woman…period. My “elected representatives” have nothing to SAY about what a “marriage” is.


  11. My PS was not directed at you, Nicki. Just a general principle.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. OK, just making sure. I went out of my way to try and provide some objective analysis, and in the end, I’m not being stubborn, I find her despicable based on said analysis, which has very little to do with her religion.


    2. My concerns are indeed very much on the legal aspects of this case – and the notion of the supremacy of the Court in such matters. Yes, I disagree very much with Marbury v. Madison (the Supreme Court saying it is the final authority is like me saying that I have the final word when it comes to interpreting the Bible in my congregation. Rings a bit self-serving?) The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is both bad law and judicial tyranny of the very worst kind – extrapolating a “right to marry” from the Fourteenth Amendment is like deciding a freed slave has no right to citizenship (Dred Scott v. Sandford.) I’m reminded of what President Andrew Jackson said (perhaps apocryphally) after John Marshall’s opinion in Worcester v. Georgia: “Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” If ever the American people should refrain those words, this case and time seems most apropos.

      For me, resisting this tyrannical intrusion of the Supreme Court is the only option for a person who values both federalism and liberty. It’s not a question of whether gays and lesbians should have the right to marry at all – but whether the Supreme Court a) had jurisdiction over this case (it didn’t); and b) whether the Supreme Court’s decision in this case is in any way binding on non-federal governing entities, especially since SCOTUS ran rough shod over the rights of individual states in deciding this issue.

      Again, there is only one real solution to this problem that is a win-win for both the LGBT community and those who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds: Remove the government from licensing marriages of any kind. But who is even discussing that option? Precious few. So for me, both sides prefer bashing each other over finding a constructive solution to the issue. We Americans are better than that.

      One final note. I am a Christian priest. I’ve decided that I can no longer place my signature on any State marriage licenses. Period, end of discussion. This is my protest against an intrusive government trying to cram it’s morality (or religion?) down my throat or those in the LGBT community intent on trying to destroy me because I oppose their agenda. I welcome all who want to be married to embrace the religious community I represent or find someone else.

      Let’s bridge the gap between our two positions in one easy legislative act. Let’s get our respective states out of the marriage business altogether, let each couple find their own way to live in harmony, and let love and justice for all be our joint motivation.


  12. I may be able to help here. But first a couple of caveats:

    I am an attorney, member of the bar in Virginia. But what I am writing is NOT legal advice and does not make any of you my clients. (just in case you needed reassurance that I am an attorney)
    I am going to break up my response into several posts, based on my arbitrary analysis. This is mostly because I need to keep working for my clients that are kind enough to pay for my time. I will post as I need to take breaks from the next letter, brief and meeting. I apologize now for the loss of coherence.

    I will talk about several issues I think you should further evaluate:
    Primacy Issues;
    Boundary of law issues;
    Penalties and corrections;
    Judge Bias;
    Changing laws; and
    societal impacts.

    I don’t mean to say you have not thought of these issues, but I would like to take you deeper and see where you want to come out after thinking of different aspects.

    And lastly, I congratulate you on writing a decent article that will increase your circulation and hope this means we will see more of these sort of articles in the future. You have talent in writing and I would be thrilled to see you get to the next level.

    So, First issue: Primacy

    It is uncontroverted that the supreme court can nullify laws, even state law. In Obergefell, the Supreme Court nullified Kentucky’s (and Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee’s) laws that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. They issued dicta that this was to enable same sex marriage.

    More interesting is that Kentucky has yet to repeal and replace the law. It takes time to do so and Kentucky’s legislature has not had time to act. Therefore Ms. Davis has a choice between obeying an opinion (a 5 to 4 opinion at that) and obeying state law. The issue will be cleaner in three years or so. After the next election when the voters have a chance to weigh in. After the legislature has a chance to change the law. In the mean time, I am at a loss why the parties are pushing it. Bad precedent all around. Muckraking comes to mind.

    So, Ms. Davis should follow the opinion, which is not yet law, immediately. The same people that could not get married for the last 150 years must now be allowed to get married NOW? They cannot wait another year, or even another three months so the legislature can act?

    Further, as an issue of primacy, Ms. Davis is being hung out to dry by everyone around her. State judges can and do sign marriage certificates (just like divorce decrees) under their own name. So the plaintiffs cannot be asked to wait an hour until the certificate can be walked down the hall and signed by a state judge? (they are in the same building) Or even a different hour to be signed by any higher elected official, such as the mayor? Must Ms. Davis be forced to bend her knee because she had the temerity to be elected under a different regime and is not ready to change?

    More later…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I do like having an attorney chime in on these issues, because, as I said before, I am not one. So it’s interesting to parse the issue from a legal standpoint.

      That said, I don’t think the people here are debating the actual legal facts, but more from an emotional perspective and personal morality.

      To me, regardless of the actual legal details, what this woman is doing is morally reprehensible. She is a government official. She took an oath to uphold both federal and state laws – she stated as much in her legal brief. She acknowledged this fact. She violated said oath because somehow, in her zealot brain, signing a legal, secular document violated her religious principles. Additionally, as a government official, who was elected by the people and who draws a not insubstantial salary from them (and that would include them gays she chooses to discriminate against), she is ethically obligated to provide equal services to all of them.

      That’s my take on it, anyway. To me, she’s a reprehensible jerk, who is trying to hold the system hostage because she doesn’t like the fact that gays are now afforded the same legal status as straight people.

      Also, as far as why must the people who haven’t been allowed to get married for 150 years be allow to get married NOW? Maybe they’ve waited long enough? Maybe they’ve fought this battle hard enough? Honestly, as I said before, I’d rather just get government out of marriage altogether. That said, had this been a super important issue to me, had I been fighting for the ability to get married to my girlfriend for years and years, perhaps I’d be anxious too. (Just putting myself in their shoes, I guess.)

      Anyway, I look forward to your subsequent comments, and thank you for the compliment on my writing. That really does mean a lot. 🙂


    2. I think some of the issues that you raise are cogent and worthy of debate, and you began with arbitrary analysis….but respectfully, diverted to appeals to emotion. For example:

      Further, as an issue of primacy, Ms. Davis is being hung out to dry by everyone around her.

      Your opinion of Kim Davis being ‘hung out to dry’ isn’t an issue of primacy. But specifically to said issue of primacy – and correct me if I’m wrong, as I’m NOT an attorney – there is no Constitutional or legal directive that stipulates how long a state or local jurisdiction has, to amend a law/ordinance. Thus, ‘immediately’ is just as valid in the eyes of the law as is ‘next year’. Case in point, Alabama did not finally repeal its miscegenation laws until 2000. Are we to grant an indefinite period of time, based upon the whims of a legislature, to enact/repeal/amend a ruling by SCOTUS? I don’t recall similar petitions for deferring the judgement of SCOTUS after the Heller, Citizens United or Hobby Lobby rulings….to name a few.

      Further, primacy isn’t the argument that Kim Davis employed in her refusal to carry out the lawful duties as County Clerk…she explicitly stated that she believed that what she had been directed to enforce was against “God’s authority”.

      Why must the citizens of Rowan County be forced to ‘bend their knee’ to accommodate the religious belief of a government official?


      1. So if the County Clerk of Rowan County refuses to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, she is forcing her religion on the citizens. But if the Supreme Court overrides the will of the people of Kentucky (who amended their Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman) and forces people of faith to violate their conscience by force to provide a license to people not eligible under the Kentucky Constitution is…good work of government?


    3. Failing to provide lawful services as a government agent, to the constituents of your jurisdiction, places a burden upon the citizenry….as does voting to deny civil liberty based on anything but Rational basis. I ask again….why should the citizen be forced to be burdened due to the religious belief of a government agent? You wouldn’t support this paradigm with any other circumstances…would you?


    4. “I ask again….why should the citizen be forced to be burdened due to the religious belief of a government agent? You wouldn’t support this paradigm with any other circumstances…would you?”

      Your question fails to recognize that the Supreme Court – in its insane and tyrannical ruling in Obergfell did EXACTLY THAT FIRST! So which one do we decry and claim is religious discrimination? The first? The second? Both?

      The argument posited by you and others decrying Kim Davis for her “intolerance” are turning a blind eye to the real perpetrators of religious and political bigotry and intolerance: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy et al. This case is a disaster and an attack on the very soul of America because it is a blow to liberty and the federalism upon which our nation is founded. It imposes the arbitrary opinion of five bigoted citizens in black robes on the whole country, forcing each state and affected municipality to yield to THEIR beliefs under the threat of the police power of the federal government. Why? Because THEY think homosexual people should be allowed to be married legally everywhere in the USA…NOW!

      Ms. Davis is being villified and trashed because she won’t issue a marriage license. But the same people are SILENT about the five miscreants on the Supreme Court using their federal power to force thousands of people to bend to their will immediately.

      So if Ms. Davis should resign, so should Anthony Kennedy. And so should the other oath-breakers who supported his bizarre and unlawful opinion.

      But in the zeitgeist of the Obergfell majority apologists and their mouthpieces in the Lamestream Media, Anthony Kennedy (et al.) is/are heroic and Kim Davis is a bigot.

      The lack of consistency in this argument is baffling to me even for the outcome driven Leftists. But to see so many Conservatives and Libertarians applauding this as some sort of judicial victory is truly unbelievable, bordering on insane.


    5. frjim123 – We seem to fundamentally disagree on the tenets of liberty. I’m equally surprised why a Conservative or Libertarian would abet the will of a majority to deny basic civil liberties to fellow citizens, based upon intangible precepts.


    6. Additionally, while you have said that you were interested primarily in the legal aspects of the case, you accuse me of labeling Davis a bigot or intolerant? I’d ask you to look at my arguments again… you’ll find some pointed legal and Constitutional aspects that I don’t be,eve have bee rebutted in kind.


  13. More commentary from the attorney please ..
    C.I. No I wouldn’t .. but I do support her right barring any legislation forbidding it to execute her 1st Amendment rights from a position of power. And find the lengths she is willing to go honorable.
    Hopefully as I said legislation will be enacted and we can go debate another issue ..


  14. So that is done. Wandering back…

    One of your points is why government is in the business of marriage in the first place. This relates to what I wanted to talk about in boundary of law issues.

    The essence of why the government is the marriage business is that our society does not tolerate several sex acts. For example, our society does not care how in love a 10 year old is with a 30 year old, they do not get to participate in sex. We do not care if the 10 year old is male or female, or whether the 30 year old is male or female. We do not care if the sex is oral, or other. (I will spare your readership the vast knowledge of sexual deviancies law school taught.) In addition, realize that you may love your dog or cat, but you may not marry them. Even if you want them to inherit instead of your deadbeat son. We expect clerks to enforce that. The courts are going to see a man/man marriage license in the middle of probate where there is a recent ex-wife and kids. And the male spouse is going to walk with the assets and the ex-wife and children are going to be very mad.

    But more importantly, we base a whole chunk of law around whether two people are considered married. For example, how are we going to compensate a wife who gives up a career to raise children? How does this affect immigration, where we give spouses a front of the line ticket? What is the basis to let some man decide on surgery for an unconscious wife?

    So, to sum up, the government has no choice but to condone some relationships and spurn others. The questions are really about which ones and how hyper are we going to get about where the line is drawn. I also do not like Ms. Davis, but sympathize with the world changing before she has a chance to adapt. I am worried about being elected and then having the rules changed on me by three women and two men who have never faced voters. Hopefully I would have the strength of character to resign, but I do have a wife and children who like where we live, food and new clothes.

    So I would ask your opinion of where the line should be drawn? Further, what would you do if the law changed tomorrow? What if that job kept a roof over your head? How vehement would you be about rights if tomorrow the law changed to allow Bigamy? (multiple person marriage) How would you feel if the law changed to disallow discrimination based on trashing a former rental property? (I have been reading your blog for a while)

    Oh, and I agree, she is not a hero. A hero would have quit and moved on from there, quietly. And I am uncomfortable with her public statements and reasons for denying the license. Bad situations make bad law…

    More later…


    1. This is why I believe that marriage – as a civil institution should be out of the purview of government, as long as both partners are consenting adults. No matter how much we want to believe that our precious 10 year old snowflake is special and mature, sorry, but he’s incapable of making a mature and informed decision, and adults are in a position to manipulate children and influence them, especially if in a position of authority. As long as people are consenting adults, be it. As for recognizing who is married, etc., I’m really of the opinion that it should be a matter of a legal contract. Period. Both parties consent. Both parties sign. Good to go.


    2. So I would ask your opinion of where the line should be drawn?

      We could start with consenting adults? Society has a very real interest in intimate relationships that involve one who has not reached an age of consent. Some of your analogies don’t take into account [or ignores] burden. A renter trashing a home has violated the terms of a lease/contract…and places a burden upon the owner. The reason that the prohibition on SSM has finally ended, is that the proponents of said prohibition could not show burden [or Rational Basis].


      1. Methinks you and I share a brain. LOL


      2. **cough** Define “consenting adult”

        My great grandmother was married at 16 and had a child on the ground at 17 – yet she was not considered an adult.


        1. Yep…..age of consent. At least she didn’t get betrothed against her as chattel property… often occurred among good church going families of yore.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I would say each state differs in terms of that awkward age of 16-18. There’s a grey area there, although, I do believe that these days (thanks to the Special Snowflake Syndrome) the majority of 16-18 year olds are definitely not mature enough to be married, head households, and be parents. That’s not to say that none of them are, but I would venture a guess that is the case for the majority.

          That said, what we DO know is that a child 0-14 is definitely too young to consent and is easily manipulated by adults in power.


    3. I think each state should determine for itself how to handle this matter. I know some folks at 17 who are mighty mature. I also know some 50 year olds I wouldn’t trust with an old can opener.


  15. My opinion, Kim is technically in the right for not issuing marriage licenses, but her reasoning is completely wrong. My reasoning is as follows. No sane person will disagree with marriages can and do have limits. You legally can’t marry your brothers, sisters, parents, decedents, etc.. You also can’t marry children, or marry someone else while still currently married. (and before any one jumps on me I am definitely not saying that homosexuality is any were close to the same thing as pedophilia, and personally I don’t think it’s similar to incest either, though I’ll admit some people could probably argue that). Legally marriage can have limits and as long as you apply it equally than the 14th amendment does not come in to play because it is equal protection.

    As the KY law is written marriage is between a man and a woman, and that applies equally to every one. If your a guy you can marry a woman if your a woman you can marry a guy. That applies to every one weather your straight or gay. The only argument that is brought against that is that a gay person can not marry a person they are sexually attracted to/or love. The problem with that is while marriage is suppose to between two people that love each other, the government really does not care weather you love/attracted to the person you marry or not. A marriage between to people who hate and despise each others guts is no less valid than one between two people deeply in love (and there have been plenty of times were people got married that did not love each other. In fact I know a guy that did just that, because he knocked some chick up and decided that he was going to do the “right thing” and marry her for the sake of the child he was going to have.) It is impossible to quantify and there for can and could never be a used legally as any sort of qualification for marriage.

    So I do not see this as violating the 14th amendment and so that makes it a 10th amendment issue, which KY law has spoken on saying marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore in my opinion Kim is technically correct in not issuing marriage licenses. Kim’s religion has no barring on this so if KY rewrote the definition of marriage she would legally have to comply based on this reasoning.

    All that being said I do thing gay marriage should be legal, as there is no go reason why it should not be, It’s just I don’t think the federal government has the power to dictate it to the states IAW the Constitution/Bill of rights.

    PS. I realize that you could potentially take this reasoning and try to apply it interracial marriages. I would argue that is not the case based on race being more of an artificial generic divide between people, that is to difficult to define and measure to make rulings based off of. On the other hand the difference between Male and Female are definable and measureable (no mater how much SJW’s like to scream otherwise).


    1. Reasonable argument, IMO. However, in the cases regarding incest and nonconsensual relationships…they can be supported by Rational Basis. In the case of homosexuals, the distinction is arbitrary, and doesn’t meet the same legal standard. “Don’t like it” won’t pass Constitutional muster.


    2. I disagree, “Don’t like it” does not even come into play whether or not it passes Constitutional muster in this case. The reason why law was made does not play apart of whether or not something is constitutional. What determines the legality of the law is what it covers and it’s effects. and whether or not those go against the constitution, which in this case I do not believe they do. There are plenty of laws on the books that the justification for is simply “Don’t like it” that are still considered Constitutional. For example you have Dry Counties, in some states or in VA from what I read it is against the law for a stripper to show her nipples in the strip club (I believe it’s if the club serves alcohol, though regardless)


    3. I disagree, “Don’t like it” does not even come into play whether or not it passes Constitutional muster in this case.

      Sure it does. Opposition has consistently failed to meet the lowest bar of legal scrutiny, Rational Basis. The opposition has uniformly failed to show burden, if the prohibition were lifted.


    4. That only maters if it violates the constitution. Based on the argument I presented, it would not be considered a violation the 14th, and therefore regardless of whether or not it could pass rational basis it would be constitutional. It is the same thing with the Strip law in VA where the strippers need to have their nipples covered. That law would not pass rational basis test either and the opposition would fail to show burden, if the prohibition were lifted, does not mater. The law is not a violation of the Constitution to begin with so the reason for the law is mute.

      Now on the other hand if you show the law does in some way may violate the Constitution than you start applying the legal scrutiny tests. For example Laws against possessing child pornography may be considered a possible violation of free speech, but they have been found constitutional based on the fact that they to pass the Strict Scrutiny test.


    5. As has been shown, repeatedly….marriage is a legal contract. Citizens have the Constitutional right under the 14 Amendment, to not be denied access to a consensual contract, barring a rational basis for a prohibition….or if there can be shown a substantial burden if said prohibition were lifted. That case has repeatedly not been made.


    6. Absolutely correct, SSF001. State marriage laws have ALWAYS treated gays PRECISELY like they’ve treated straights. Therefore, there is no “unequal” protections at issued here. That makes the 10th operational, and Kentucky has spoken to this issue. Unconstitutional laws (or “opinions”) are, by their very nature, null and void, and impose NO duty or obligation on the part of anyone that they be “obeyed.”


  16. […] ANY LEVEL – should be involved in personal relationships between consenting adults. And yet Kim Davis and the current crop of politicians that supports her are certainly doing exactly this. They seem […]


  17. She clearly never heard of the separation of church and state – regardless of her morale convictions. In this instance the right thing for her to do – if she was so compelled by her views – would be to Step DOWN and resign. Not feel like she can remain entitled to her job.

    Hey have your religious opinions and freedoms – that’s what this country is all about. But she gives the vast majority of honest and impartial government employees a bad image…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Why should she “step down?” Do you have the LEAST concept of how small a part of a county clerk’s job is issuing “marriage licenses?” It’s considerably LESS than 1% of her time…especially in a county that small. Just because YOU think she should? Don’t like what she did, MOVE there and vote her out of office. Otherwise, keep your opinions, but allow her to do the other 99% of her job. If her constituents don’t like what she did, THEY’LL take care of it in due course.


      1. You sir are entitled to your opinion. And I am mine. If you are a public servant and are required to execute the law – yet your morale convictions make you feel like you cannot – then you cannot fulfill the office upon which you have entered. Plain and simple.


%d bloggers like this: