Althouse: "If any of [the deputy clerks] feels that they must issue an unauthorized license to avoid being thrown in jail, I understand their tough choice..."

September 14, 2015

"If any of [the deputy clerks] feels that they must issue an unauthorized license to avoid being thrown in jail, I understand their tough choice..."

"... and I will take no action against them.... However, any unauthorized license they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it... Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order."

Kim Davis, back at work, in her official position, casting aspersions on marriages citizens have a right to obtain.

241 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 241 of 241

damikesc said...: First, how can anyone say that “marriage” is based in nature? How many species get married besides humans? In fact, most species reproduce without expectation of establishing a lasting relationship. Where there are long lasting relationships the most common model is the dominant male with the herd of females. So we humans have deviated a great deal already from nature by creating the institution of marriage of a couple.

How many species created the internet? How many write on it? How many build hospitals? How many perform surgeries?

Do you really want to limit what we can do to what baboons are capable of? Evolution indicates some assumption of IMPROVEMENT over one's genetic predecessors, not a desire to revert back to them.

Second, there is the argument that marriage exists for reproduction. By that logic marriage should be limited to those couples who have actually produced a child. Furthermore, there is no reason to issue marriage licenses to older women unless they are committed to adopting or fostering of children. Also, marriages should only be valid for as long as the couple is producing and raising children. Once the children are grown the marriage automatically should be dissolved. That would eliminate the need for divorce and expedite the process whereby men could marry a different fertile woman and then repeat the process of reproduction. Clearly this is not what marriage is about.

Yes, because parents have nothing to do with their offspring after age 18. I've never once asked my dad or mom for advice on anything ever once I graduated high school. I had my shit down cold!

And providing a framework for a relationship that can perpetuate our species isn't a requirement that the adherents actually abide by the reproduction. The opportunity exists in a way it cannot exist for homosexual couplings, sorry to break it to you.

Your comment on annulling marriage due to age or infertility is not just weak, it's weak AND fairly dumb. We've seen 66 year old women give birth, which was thought impossible not that long ago.

For thousands of years, and in many places in the world still today, women were considered property and marriage was a legal certification of that status. Just because that tradition has existed doesn’t invalidate that a lot of us have come to accept that women are people, not property. Therefore the expectations within marriage relationships have changed tremendously.

Mighty white of you there, son. Care to explain where women were "property"? You're going to argue that there were civilizations that men wouldn't get punished if they, say, killed their wife (given that one can break one's own chair and suffer no repurcussions for doing so?) I don't think you've thought out these talking points well.

Adding the 2% of the population who as same sex couples have committed to stay together either to raise children or offer support to each other, is not really a threat.

...unless you're a baker and don't want to make them a wedding cake.

...or you're a photographer and don't want to take their wedding photos.

Then it's a big threat to one's livelihood. But, hey, omelettes and eggs, right?

Why should we overturn millennia of tradition to appease 2% of the population who have staggering issues with domestic violence (in the case of lesbians) and infidelity (in the case of gay men)? Seems like an exceptionally poor trade.; 9/14/15, 5:54 PM
Jaq said...: Nature of "marriage" in human history aside. It is not irrational for the government to choose to create legal protections for those of its citizens entering into a sexual union that is likely to produce children and it is not irrational to choose not to extend those same protections to unions that can never produce children.; 9/14/15, 6:11 PM
Achilles said...: This is the best thread ever.

One side argues that because of a thousands year old tradition they can tell 2 people they can't use the word marriage because they don't conform to this norm. Then they hilariously cite religious freedom to defend bigotry and claim that if the government monopoly on force isn't used to force everyone to hold up their religious view their freedom of religion is violated.

The other side validates everything the traditional marriage supporters are saying by trying to tear down every institution they can and demanding that the government monopoly on force is used to force a majority of the electorate to grovel to a small group of hateful fucks who use about 100,000 gay people who actually want to get married as props.

Both sides demonstrate why neither should get to use a government monopoly on force..; 9/14/15, 6:36 PM
Etienne said...: tim in vermont said......choose to create legal protections for those of its citizens entering into a sexual union...

I believe in England, marriages, baptisms, and burials were a tax for the war against France. The Priest did all the registrations, and no county clerk had to lose any sleep over her born again faith.

In this regard, the more the Priest got, the merrier the war!; 9/14/15, 6:38 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Althouse is a lying fucking cunt.

I'm using precisely the language I intend to use.

This cunt has been pretending that she and her son are niggers for 50 years in order to scam a system originally intended to benefit poor blacks.

Althouse was once a sympathizer of using the language and tactics I'm using. She speaks constantly of her worship of the "counterculture" of the 60s. That counterculture used brutal tactics to break down the lies and censorship of the day, which is mirrored today in the lies and censorship of PC.

See the work of R. Crumb for insight into just how brutal those tactics were back in the 60s.

The only way to break through the stupid lies and general asshole behavior of this fag hag bitch is to speak with brutal bluntness.

I'm not seeking to win minds. I'm tearing your PC fortress a new asshole, Althouse.; 9/14/15, 6:45 PM
Etienne said...: The queers don't really want to get married. They just want to destroy the government institution.

In that the government institution is a welfare program anyway, we don't all have to agree with the reason the queers want to destroy it, only that its destruction would be a good thing against federalism.

Civil marriage without government benefits, would be worthless piece of paper, signed by a worthless public clerk, so therefore it must be its face value that makes it an attraction for even the wealthiest.

I'm talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

What would happen to all the courts, lawyers, and judges if civil marriage was destroyed? Why, we'd save millions in taxes. Those poor bastards would have to get in line for the regular courts (contracts, property, etc).; 9/14/15, 6:49 PM
Drago said...: R. Chatt: "First, how can anyone say that “marriage” is based in nature? How many species get married besides humans? In fact, most species reproduce without expectation of establishing a lasting relationship."

Hey, if beetles don't do it, how great can it be?; 9/14/15, 6:52 PM
Etienne said...: Shouting Thomas said......I'm tearing your PC fortress a new asshole...

ha... I thought it was just a blog.; 9/14/15, 6:53 PM
JD said...: How do comments by lunatics such as Shouting Tom Ass contribute to the discussion?; 9/14/15, 7:20 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: I am all for whatever brings the facade down faster.

Baby Boomers, you signed on the loans.

Give EVERYTHING you have -- leave yourself Hairshirts and Ashes -- and it won't be enough.

But consider doing it before your grandchildren Shoot You In The Head.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 7:25 PM
Jim S. said...: OK, here's a parallel I've been thinking of. See if your response to this is comparable to your response to the Davis situation. If you see a significant difference between this and the Davis situation, see if we can fiddle with it to make it more parallel.

A Muslim is elected to local office, and part of his duties is to issue food handler permits for restaurants. After serving in this office for a while, the federal government expands his duties so that they also require him to issue liquor licenses. These licenses would have his name on them. He objects to this on religious grounds (even though his religion only requires him to abstain from alcohol himself), and offers alternatives that would remove his name from the liquor licenses. All of these alternatives are rejected by the government, and so he refuses to issue any liquor licenses. He is then thrown in jail.

Now regardless of whether you think his religion actually requires him to refuse to issue liquor licenses, do you think his personal conscience should be the deciding factor? As long as he feels that having his name on the liquor licenses would be to sin against God and would put his soul in jeopardy, should he be allowed to act accordingly? If you think this concern on his part should make him ineligible for this office, what if many other Muslims feel the same way as him, that their Muslim faith would require them to not issue liquor licenses? Are you then saying that Muslims should not be allowed to hold that office? Who gets to decide what Muslim devotion entails, you or actual Muslims?

Now just replace Muslim with Christian, food handler permit with marriage license, and liquor license with marriage license for gay couple. And don't think you can divine my response to this: I genuinely don't have one. I don't see a good resolution to either case.; 9/14/15, 7:26 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: "But consider doing it before your grandchildren Shoot You In The Head."

Baby Boomers like to believe they have done good. Woodstock, Organic foods, Madison Wisonsin, etc.

They will die before they see the worst of what they have left their Children.

Except for the ones that face the Gun of Timely Truth. This will be the Children of the Children.

I won't argue wit them.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 7:33 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: If Baby Boomer Blood does not course down the streets in rivers the Country wasn't worth saving.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 7:35 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: I will argue that the Young watch Zombie Shows to relieve the Urge to Kill those Elders of the World currently Walking in Indifference.

Some with walkers, some with canes.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 7:38 PM
Anonymous said...: 1: Only citizens? So she doesn't have to issue any "marriage" licenses to non-US citizens, or to a US Citizen "marrying" a non-citizen?

2: No, they don't have a "right" to it. They have an assault on democracy, the rule of law, and the US Constitution ordering people to give them a real marriage license for their fake "marriage". There's a difference.

See, this is what you happen when you use illegitimate means to advance your agenda. Not only is there no principled reason for the rest of us to acknowledge any "victories" you might achieve, but we have a strong principled reason to fight you, and reject your goals in every way.

IOW, before "judges" started forcing the abomination of same sex "marriage" on America, I didn't give a shit about it.

Now? Now I hate it, oppose it, and will fight it any and every way I can, including with mockery and contempt. You're pushing the SSM bullshit in order to try to force people to pretend that same sex relationships are just as valuable as heterosexual relationships. So now it's incumbent upon my to push back against that lie at every possible opportunity.

Enjoy!; 9/14/15, 7:44 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Achilles wrote:
"One side argues that because of a thousands year old tradition they can tell 2 people they can't use the word marriage because they don't conform to this norm."

More lies. No one is taking this position. I suppose what Achilles meant was that one side argues that because of a two thousand year tradition they can't be forced to use the word "marriage" to describe a same-sex union. Even that isn't true. The tradition is more than 2,000 years and is not attached to any particular religion or culture.
If you need to lie to make your argument, you really should rethink your position, Achilles.; 9/14/15, 7:49 PM
Gospace said...: "Matt said...

I'm interested is seeing this discussed at some point...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
9/14/15, 3:27 PM "

That's been known for years. It is, of course, now completely rewritten out of history. Destroying marriage and families is also straight out of the Marxist handbook. And, or course, no communist country has recognized SSM as valid. They want OUR society to be destroyed, not theirs.; 9/14/15, 8:04 PM
Robert Cook said...: "So, yeah, why not 3?"

Well...why not? I have nothing against it.; 9/14/15, 8:06 PM
Drago said...: jr565: "Cook, you cant be that stupid. They are qualitatively different because only through heterosexual relations can the entire human race continue" Even gay people need members of the opposite sex if they want kids of their own."

What happens if a homosexual couple "identifies" as a heterosexual couple?; 9/14/15, 8:08 PM
Jason said...: Then they hilariously cite religious freedom to defend bigotry

I don't agree with your characterization. If you oppose alcoholism are you a bigot? If you oppose adultery are you a bigot? If you oppose bigamy or polyamory are you a bigot? If your niece wants to marry a husband who's a drug addict and a child abuser and you don't want to signify your support of the marriage by attending the wedding, or signing the wedding registry, does that make you a bigot? If you oppose consensual incest are you bigoted towards those people? If you oppose the Patriots in the playoffs are you bigoted towards New Englanders?

Let's take that a step further... If you don't particularly care, but you grew up in Seattle and you don't want to wear a Patriots jersey in public with your name on it does that make you bigoted towards New Englanders?

You throw that word around as if you understand the thought processes behind not wanting to put your name on a same sex marriage license, but I don't think you have a clue. Keep on fucking that straw man, though. If you think merely not wanting to affix one's name to a given document in violation of centuries of religious orthodoxy qualifies as bigotry in any meaningful sense of the word, then you're the bigot.

Not anyone else. Look to your own self.

Now, lets run with this football a little bit further: For the sake of argument, let's concede your pathetic little straw man and assume, absent a lick of evidence, that her thought processes are, indeed, those of a bigot. In that case, you are damn right I will cite religious liberty, even to the point of defending a bigot, because if liberty has any meaning, it includes the natural right to be a bigot.

Bigots are entitled to religious liberty, or liberty has no meaning.

If you can't defend religious liberty, or free speech, even in the cases of the least sympathetic and most bigoted and obnoxious characters in the country, then you don't understand liberty at all. You just have the brownshirts beating down a different set of doors and jailing, bankrupting or destroying a different set of citizens.; 9/14/15, 8:09 PM
Robert Cook said...: Well, after all this virtual sturm und drang, the upshot is that those of us who support the rights of gays to marry and who see Ms. Davis as essentially a Christian jihadi are glaringly correct, and those who cheer Ms. Davis's religious tyranny and who oppose gays marrying are dismally and obviouslywrong. It's not even a contest.; 9/14/15, 8:20 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "Then they hilariously cite religious freedom to defend bigotry"
Like Obama before 2012. How could anyone vote for a rat-bastard bigot like Obama?; 9/14/15, 8:20 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Bigots are entitled to religious liberty, or liberty has no meaning."

They're not entitled to use the power of official office to inflict their bigotry on others or to withhold from others access to legal rights and services available to everyone.; 9/14/15, 8:24 PM
chickelit said...: Robert Cook said...

They're not entitled to use the power of official office to inflict their bigotry on others or to withhold from others access to legal rights and services available to everyone.

I agree but you should have voiced a similar concern when a bigoted IRS targeted Tea Party groups. There are other examples of what you're complaining about and there will potentially be many more depending on the behavior of all parties involved.

I would like to see the Davis matter further litigated. Conscientious objectors need to to know whether their religious faiths disqualify them from certain public or even private offices.; 9/14/15, 8:36 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: " . . . and those who cheer Ms. Davis's religious tyranny"
Apparently you do not understand what tyranny is, Robert Cook.; 9/14/15, 8:37 PM
Qwinn said...: Actually, Cook, I haven't seen a single argument against my point that rises above the level of a sophomore philosophy discussion. High school sophomores. Not even college.

Marriage is about things other than children? That was your gem. Okay, and which ones of those does society have *any* "compelling state interest" in promoting to one thousandth the extent? Cause dozens if not hundreds of court cases made that point. Of course, not one of those cases count as "precedent". Only the first case where they found a closeted judge to arrogantly dismiss the importance of children to the purpose of marriage as not even having a "rational basis" counts as "precedent". Cause you know your cause is just if you need a hypocritical double standard utterly indefensible one way legal ratchet to lock it in place!

And you know what you prove? The utterly nauseating self righteousness of the monolithically idiotic political Left. Cause here's the thing. Sure, you disagree that marriage is primarily about children. This puts you in an infinitesimal sliver of a percentage point compared to the number of human beings who have ever lived who disagree with you. But you don't just disagree, no, nor do the activist judges who carry your agenda. You actually have the gall to maintain that there is NO RATIONAL BASIS to disagree with you. That's what makes leftists kill millions of their countrymen everywhere they get their way. Because you cannot simply disagree. Even if you're in the tiniest minority, you are so f'ing sure that anyone who disagrees with you must be irrational. The most annoying firebreathing bible thumping preacher who ever lived doesn't approach the infinite arrogance you possess, but the bible thumper is far less likely to be as utterly unaware of it as you are. He at least wouldn't insist on constantly bragging about being "open minded". Nauseating.; 9/14/15, 8:45 PM
MadisonMan said...: Conscientious objectors need to to know whether their religious faiths disqualify them from certain public or even private offices.

You can pass on the responsibility. Aren't pharmacists allowed to pass on filling birth control? (Given that someone else "nearby" can fill it) The difference here, as I understand it, is that the County Clerk asserts her religious beliefs trump all, which is very un-American.; 9/14/15, 9:08 PM
Jason said...: They have a right to a county-issued marriage license under Obergefell. They do not have a right to her name on it, or anybody else's. Only a tyrant can think that they do.; 9/14/15, 9:27 PM
Jason said...: There are many people targeting pro-life pharmacists and trying to drive them from the business as we speak.; 9/14/15, 9:33 PM
chickelit said...: You can pass on the responsibility. Aren't pharmacists allowed to pass on filling birth control? (Given that someone else "nearby" can fill it) The difference here, as I understand it, is that the County Clerk asserts her religious beliefs trump all, which is very un-American.

One of the facts I'd like to see litigated is the role of outside couples coming to that county to seek licenses. Davis may have known the precise identities and domiciles of all the parties involved. This information may be getting suppressed by the media and for good reason: outside interlopers take away sympathy and increase enmity from locals, including Davis' constituents.; 9/14/15, 9:47 PM
Carnifex said...: Althouse doing her damnedest to ignore that on the Congress can write laws in our Copnstitutional Republic, no matter what the traitors on the Supreme Court say.; 9/14/15, 11:46 PM
Carnifex said...: cookie said--""So, yeah, why not 3?"

Well...why not? I have nothing against it."

Yes. He really is that stupid. Wanna see the results of polygamy, look at the mideast, and their goat fucking millions.

Oh! Well we wouldn't do it that way!

Yeah, because the Left doesn't behave like human beings have for millenia. Stupid.; 9/14/15, 11:56 PM
Achilles said...: Look at the fools on here who support marriage and they think the best way to defend it is to turn it over to the government. They think that To use the government monopoly on force to uphold something that is so fundamental to our society as marriage is a good idea. Then they think that this is the hill to die on.

There are very few gay people who actually want to get married. They are decent people and keeping them from getting married is not worth the effort. In fact insisting that the government is the best way to defend marriage is all of our downfall. You are giving Obama and the left the authority that comes with saying marriage is a government function because the majority of people believe gay people should have the same opportunity to marry who they love.

Marriage should be a church function. Not a government function. I was called a liar and some other garbage above by some new people. Glad you are here but be ready to back up your shit. Judging gay people and treating them as a monolithic group is bigotry. Some of them are great people in committed relationships and they deserve respect. Denying these people the chance to recognize their relationships is counterproductive.

Your intransigence is giving the leftists ammunition and power. They are taking your bigotry and using it to increase government power. They are using this power to destroy this and you are contributing to it. You are the minority now and you better figure out that the minority wants less government and more liberty or we all lose.; 9/15/15, 3:16 AM
Mark said...: Chickelit, the first couple (gay) to get a certificate in Rowan County live in Rowan County.

It's not that hard to Google it, if you cared. Like Jason earlier you prefer to not look it up and just throw false accusations.

It doesn't strengthen your argument to be so deliberately incorrect. Took me under a minute to find this out ...; 9/15/15, 4:44 AM
Dr Weevil said...: Mark:
There is no contradiction, and you shouldn't accuse others of "false accusations" without better evidence. Wikipedia reports that four couples (two gay, two straight) sued Rowan county. It was widely reported that one gay couple came from Ohio to file in Rowan county. You have not refuted that. Has that couple since married in one of the dozens of counties in Ohio and Kentucky that are in easy driving range and that would gladly marry them? Was "the first couple (gay) to get a certificate in Rowan County" one of the four couples that sued? Even if it was, what about the other three? Have they all married, or was the lawsuit (to at least some extent) a set-up and a fraud, with people claiming they wanted to marry who didn't actually want to? I still want to know. Don't you?; 9/15/15, 6:58 AM
Rusty said...: Meh.; 9/15/15, 7:27 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Nauseating."

Qwinn, I hear Pepto Bismol is good for that.; 9/15/15, 9:31 AM
Jason said...: Mark.. What did I write that was false? Spell it out or retract.; 9/15/15, 9:59 AM
Jason said...: Oh dear. Looks like Mark's got some egg on his face! #castingaspersions; 9/15/15, 10:35 AM
Gospace said...: When I read people writing about their support for SSM because homosexual couples shouldn't be denied the right to have their committed relationships recognized, I laugh at the absurdity. Polls amongst male homosexuals consistently show the vast majority fully intend to have sex with others besides their married partner. But, go ahead and pretend it's the same thing.; 9/15/15, 10:46 AM
Jason said...: Ohhhh, Maaaaark! Gonna prove I wrote something false or retract? Any time, Ace.; 9/15/15, 2:36 PM