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:

1 – 200 of 241 Newer› Newest»

Gahrie said...: Remember, the Supreme Court once ruled that Black people were not, and could never be, citizens of the United States. (We won't even get into the atrocity of Roe); 9/14/15, 8:21 AM
Tank said...: Kim gives AA a poke in the eye back!; 9/14/15, 8:23 AM
MadisonMan said...: I refuse to do my job, but I will continue to cash my paycheck.; 9/14/15, 8:23 AM
TrespassersW said...: Feel free (and it appears that feelings are the only things that matter) to call me a hater, but a relationship between two people of the same sex is not and never can be a marriage. Calling it marriage doesn't make it one.; 9/14/15, 8:27 AM
Unknown said...: Casting aspersions! Twilight zone again. Are we living in the same world? There is no aspersions here. The court has said that marriage licenses must be issued by a local official. Since when did a federal court have dominion over a local office hijacking the local office? The federal court should be issuing the marriage licenses itself now; 9/14/15, 8:28 AM
Hagar said...: The State of Kentucky needs to change the form so that it does not require the County Clerk's personal signature. I would think the Governor can do that by "executive action."

That is, if the objective is to resolve the difficulty rather than to just triumph in a temper tantrum.; 9/14/15, 8:31 AM
Paul Snively said...: This is the inevitable consequence of the incoherent belief in positive rights which are granted by the government. What makes the belief incoherent is precisely that there is literally no way for the government to "grant" everyone the "rights" they want, free of contradiction. This was understood by the founding fathers, which is why the US Constitution was framed in terms of negative rights and constraints on government. But Article 10 was insufficiently clear even to some wrongheaded thinkers at the time, so we got the Bill of Rights, which started the endless spiral of attempting to enumerate the innumerable and opened the doors to the modern competitive-right-granting interpretation of the separation of powers.; 9/14/15, 8:31 AM
Ken B said...: "Casting aspersions". Is your argument that she is required to express approval? Or that issuing a license is an expression of her approval? Because if either were the case she'd have a colourable claim first amendment grounds. No-one thinks that if she issues a license for a tree planting she approves of the species of tree planted; her claim is baseless precisely for this reason.; 9/14/15, 8:32 AM
Hagar said...: No. This is the marvelous world of occult phenomena that only the iniiated can perceive within the 14th Amendment.; 9/14/15, 8:34 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Government Officials who feel their personal opinions override my rights: doesn't matter the issue, I am against it.

And would be still, even if she was Hot.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 8:34 AM
Jaq said...: So when do we start defining a gay couple who has contracted to adopt as "pregnant" and when will a federal judge force us to use that term because "love wins"?; 9/14/15, 8:36 AM
Swifty Quick said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/15, 8:36 AM
Jaq said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/15, 8:38 AM
Cog said...: Rowan County, home of the last remaining Clerk’s office where the State-imposition of a fundamental falsehood on society has yet to take place.; 9/14/15, 8:39 AM
Sebastian said...: By the way, professor, where does the Constitution authorize federal courts to regulate the local issuance of marriage licenses? Does that fall under "substantive due process" as well?; 9/14/15, 8:39 AM
tim maguire said...: It's hard to see how people who complain about Obama ruling by executive order can support Kim Davis treating her position as a fiefdom.; 9/14/15, 8:40 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Your fag hag feminism is suicidal.

Western Europe is destroying itself with your barren, suicidal ideology.

So, fuck you. Somebody's got to fight your suicidal, ugly, fetid fag hag ideology.

Fag hag feminism can only exist under the umbrella of a Judeo-Christian culture. You are a parasite who has become so greedy and depraved that you don't care if you kill the host.; 9/14/15, 8:40 AM
Jaq said...: Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order."

Why is that an "aspersion" Althouse? I thought that ramming your will through via the courts was the American way? It is almost as if you think that a marriage certificate forced by a judge is somehow lessened than one issued in the name of the people and arrived at democratically.

NAAAAHHHH!; 9/14/15, 8:42 AM
tim maguire said...: Zeb Quinn said...Which she has a right to do. Deal with it.

No, she doesn't. Deal with it.; 9/14/15, 8:42 AM
Pete said...: Where in the article was Davis "casting aspersions?"; 9/14/15, 8:44 AM
tim maguire said...: Paul Snively said...This is the inevitable consequence of the incoherent belief in positive rights which are granted by the government.

You have it exactly backwards, Paul. The government lacks the right to deny them their marriage.; 9/14/15, 8:45 AM
David Begley said...: In all seriousness, how many more SS couples in KY still need to get married? Would not the pent up demand have gotten married already?

The actual number of SS marriages is very low.; 9/14/15, 8:45 AM
rhhardin said...: She's right on marriage.; 9/14/15, 8:46 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: For instance: if there was a Government License available that would let me legally have sex with Hot Seventeen-year-old American Cheerleaders I might consider applying for it.

And if a homely government drone -- who knows her best days, what few there were, are forever behind her -- tried to prevent me from obtaining said license based on her personal beliefs I would consider employing Revolutionary Acts.

Keep your hands off my Cheerleaders.

Or Keep My Hands on My Cheerleaders.

Kinda works both ways. I think.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 8:47 AM
Jaq said...: I support civil unions for anybody who wants to enter one. Brother and sister, mother and son, boy and boy, girl and girl, boy and girls, girls and boy, boy and boys, girl and girls, whatever.

Oh I forgot, father and daughter, father and daughters. It's all good! But I would have a hard time calling any one of them a "marriage."

But many of the above relationships are not allowed under the "love wins" doctrine, due to its as yet incomplete application. Father daughter marriage is not allowed, for instance, because no judge has stuck his finger in the air and decided that this is what the people wanted, really. You see, we used to decide this stuff by elections, but now a judge just rules based in his feelings, and that is our stand in for actually going through the effort of deliberating as a society and coming to a decision. Democracy is just too much work! Better that we be ruled by nine philosopher kings.; 9/14/15, 8:48 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: I haven't had a mandamus case for a good long while.

Maybe I should brush up a bit.; 9/14/15, 8:50 AM
Jaq said...: No, she doesn't. Deal with it. - tim maguire

This is sometimes a constitutional law blog. I would love to hear the basis for that statement.; 9/14/15, 8:50 AM
CJinPA said...: This story is on life support. Media and bloggers are feverishly applying attention and faux meaning to keep it alive. Assignment editors can be heard sobbing in the background. "I think we just always thought this story would be there. We never took the time say, 'We love you. After the Supreme Court ruling made this debate pointless, you gave us a reason to go on. And on and on.'"; 9/14/15, 8:50 AM
Jaq said...: Plus we can't let a bunch of right wing hicks in a red state govern themselves!; 9/14/15, 8:54 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Over the past few years, I've auditioned for church organist jobs at quite a few Protestant churches. In almost every instance, the pastor was a gay man or a lesbian, and was very assertive in telling me about his or her sexuality. Feminism and gay identity politics seems to rule those churches, not traditional Christianity.

My observation is that traditional hetero family oriented Protestants leave those churches in droves, and that the remaining tiny congregation can barely pay its bills. But, the remaining skeleton congregation doesn't seem to care.

Lesson: Acceding to the demands of fag hags and gays is suicide.; 9/14/15, 8:55 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: I proclaim Seattle as a Sanctuary City for those that want sex with Hot Seventeen-year-old American Cheerleaders.

That should do it.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 8:57 AM
Scott said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/15, 8:57 AM
Jaq said...: Oh I get it, gay couples will be denied the little frisson of pride they would otherwise enjoy by having Kim Davis's name on their license!

Well guess what, having Kim Davis's name on their license represents democratic support for the decision. Support which did not exist, and the judge cannot order it up. He can only put her in jail.; 9/14/15, 8:58 AM
Scott said...: Kim Davis and Orval Faubus -- two white Democrat elected officials in the South who defied federal court orders to do their duty because of their personal beliefs.

As Mark Twain wrote, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."; 9/14/15, 8:58 AM
Static Ping said...: Zeb Quinn said...Which she has a right to do. Deal with it.

tim maguire said... No, she doesn't. Deal with it.

Ooh, I like this game. When do we break into the tomato/tomato pronunciation debate?

But, yes, she has the right to "cast aspersions" as much as she likes. Elected officials do this all the time all all variety of matters. For that matter some of them do so and then propose obviously unconstitutional punishments! If we banned the use of aspersions by elected officials, golly, we would probably have to impeach 99% of them. Hey, not a bad idea! Can we extend that to appointed officials? That would probably completely clean out the judiciary.; 9/14/15, 8:59 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Plus we can't let a bunch of right wing hicks in a red state govern themselves!"

-- So red she's a Democrat! Honestly, if I were her, I'd've quit instead of gone through this nonsense.; 9/14/15, 9:01 AM
Mark said...: I think the Governor needs to stop issuing his signature on her paycheck, see what she thinks of selective signature refusal.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.; 9/14/15, 9:02 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Our gallant hostess is so sharp and perceptive on so many issues, but, ugh, she is all twisted up and confused on this one. Let me offer some facts:

In 2014, the CDC did the largest survey of adult sexual orientation in the US and found the following:

Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual.

This means about 2.5% of Americans are gay. Because the number is so small, we can consider it a social outlier. True, we shouldn't mistreat this tiny minority, and, Yes, they deserve respect and compassion, as do all citizens. But to elevate their "struggles" or "plight" into some noble cause is a joke. It would be akin to focusing our cancer research on the tiny number of male breast cancer cases (1-2% of all cases), when obviously that is not the focal point of the issue.

Straights and gays can reach a decent equilibrium in this society as long as the tiny number of gays and their vigilant supporters calm down and gain a little perspective on their small role in a much bigger picture, jeez.; 9/14/15, 9:02 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: The Nutty Perfesser is only pretending to be moved by compassion.

She's a destructive, devious witch.

And, as she's said repeatedly, she's regarded as the sane, "conservative" member of her law faculty. Can you imagine how fucking nuts the rest of them are?; 9/14/15, 9:03 AM
Known Unknown said...: A Facebook friend of mine posted an image of Kim Davis with Dick Cheney's face over hers (the thought being that they looked alike, which they very well might.)

You know Dick Cheney, that bigot who has supported same-sex marriage since 2000.; 9/14/15, 9:04 AM
Jason said...: They have a right to a license.

They don't have a right to compel any other individual to put his or her name on it against their conscience.

Fuck. That.

And fuck all petty tyrants who think otherwise.

Especially those two assholes who don't even live in Kentucky, but who drove all the way into Kentucky from out of state to the one clerk in Kentucky they could find with a moral objection to issuing a same sex license, just to see if they could destroy her life.; 9/14/15, 9:04 AM
Static Ping said...: tim maguire said...
It's hard to see how people who complain about Obama ruling by executive order can support Kim Davis treating her position as a fiefdom.

Quite true. It's called Rule of Law.

Then again, it is not clear at the moment if it still exists in the United States.

Answer hazy, ask again later.; 9/14/15, 9:04 AM
Once written, twice... said...: Ann, Kim Davis does have the right to display her bigoted hateful self. History will judge her a fool. What is important is that marriage licenses are being issued in accordance with the law.; 9/14/15, 9:04 AM
Known Unknown said...: As an elected official, can she not be impeached?; 9/14/15, 9:06 AM
Jason said...: I think the Governor needs to stop issuing his signature on her paycheck, see what she thinks of selective signature refusal.

Oh, goody. Let's create a precedent whereby governors and state treasurers can hold elected officials' paychecks hostage if they don't vote or act they want in office.

Scratch a liberal, you will find a fascist.

Every. Time.; 9/14/15, 9:08 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: History will judge her a fool.

Western Europe is committing suicide through childlessness and fag haggotry.

The entire liberal welfare state, feminist and fag hag infrastructure is going to be annihilated by Muslim invaders, and the fag hags want to do the same thing here.

History might very well be written by a triumphant American Islamic State.; 9/14/15, 9:10 AM
Hagar said...: The County Clerk, as the title says, is an independently elected county official and nobody's "employee."
The county treasurer's name may be on her paycheck, but not the governor's.; 9/14/15, 9:11 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Possibly interesting context for the word aspersion: Wikipedia "aspersion."; 9/14/15, 9:13 AM
m stone said...: The billboard erected by Planting Peace reads: "Dear Kim Davis, The fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage."

There is always a misnamed group around at times like this with a bullhorn clanging message.; 9/14/15, 9:13 AM
dbp said...: No couple has an inalienable right to force other people to recognize or honor that couple's relationship. No citizen has a "right" to obtain a marriage from the government. The government doesn't have to be in the marriage business.

It has been a useful thing, marriage, because it gave a standard format for child custody, division of property, inheritance etc. But now it looks like it is more trouble than it is worth. We can move forward via contract law--the courts can get involved when there is a dispute and never needs to judge what a marriage is.; 9/14/15, 9:14 AM
Jason said...: You still have a problem: How are courts to decide disputes in the absence of a contract? We have wills, now. But we still have to deal with intestate law all the time.; 9/14/15, 9:16 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: EMD said...

As an elected official, can she not be impeached?

She can, but if she is violating someone's constitutional rights, and the people who could impeach her approve of that violation, then she won't be impeached.

Imagine she was a racist county official in a racist county, and was the only one in the county who could issue marriage licenses, and the law regarding marriage licenses was that you must obtain it from your home county. If she refused to issue the license to a black heterosexual couple that would violate their equal protection rights, and she would not get impeached for it. In such a case, federal intervention would seem warranted.

I'm not saying the current case matches this scenario, just showing why the possibility of impeachment is not sufficient to prevent violations of constitutional rights.; 9/14/15, 9:20 AM
Hagar said...: And the licenses are not being issued in accordance with the "law," since Kentucky State law still says the licenses must be signed by the County Clerk.

In fact, that a license is required at all is a result of Kentucky State law. The Kentucky state legislature could also vote to repeal that requirement, and Kentucky would be like Colorado - any itinerant couple passing through could declare themselves "married" and just have a county clerk's office attest that they had so stated (since there needs to be a document on file somewhere recognized by state and federal revenue services).; 9/14/15, 9:20 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: It is a shame that Kim Davis isn't a Muslim, denying licenses on her religious beliefs.

That would make this much more interesting.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 9:21 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...a relationship between two people of the same sex is not and never can be a marriage. Calling it marriage doesn't make it one."

Sure it does. "Marriage" is just a word referring to a particular relationship between two people. That the people may be of the same gender does not in any way change the nature of the relationship. The word (and concept) "marriage" does not exist outside our ourselves, is not handed down from on high, is not fixed, and there have been many types of marital relationships around the world over time, including marriages between people of the same gender.

Your saying "calling it a marriage doesn't make it one" does not make it not one.; 9/14/15, 9:22 AM
Etienne said...: The governor has said that he could issue an executive order to no longer require the clerks signature on any marriage license.

I guess he has been advised to stay out of it.; 9/14/15, 9:22 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: That the people may be of the same gender does not in any way change the nature of the relationship.

This is so fucking stupid.

How did we get to the point where any person would be fucking stupid enough to utter this bullshit in any public forum?

We've lost the ability to observe and experience reality in the West.

Of course, Cookie is a commie and deliberate destruction of the family has long been a foundational concept of Marxists. He's motivated by hatred and evil.; 9/14/15, 9:27 AM
Johanna Lapp said...: When my future wife gets pregnant, I want our children to have the protection of their mothers bring married. Should tragedy strike, I don't want her parents contesting my custody of our children. Those two are so fucked up, they raised a lesbian daughter. I want my kids free to be straight, or whatever they turn out to be.

If you need a license to protect your family, the government owes that license to every citizen. There is no "separate but equal" equivalent for the Rainbow-coloreds. And Kim Davis' God doesn't hold an exclusive trademark on the word "marriage."; 9/14/15, 9:27 AM
Mark said...: Jason said: "
Oh, goody. Let's create a precedent whereby governors and state treasurers can hold elected officials' paychecks hostage if they don't vote or act they want in office.

Scratch a liberal, you will find a fascist.

Every. Time."

Funny, that's what Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans tried to do in 2011 during the protests when they discontinued direct deposit on per diem and paychecks and forced everyone to pick up their checks personally from the President of the State Senate.

It's amazing how many times you call your own side fascists, Jason.

I was just following the Scott Walker playbook in my solution. After hearing people tell me that what Kim Davis is doing is ok because of sanctuary cities, I figure what Scott Walker did is ok to apply to Kim Davis.

I didn't hear this blog erupting over the paycheck shenanigans in February of 2011.; 9/14/15, 9:27 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: dbp said...

No citizen has a "right" to obtain a marriage from the government. The government doesn't have to be in the marriage business.

True. But once the government decides to get into the marriage business then it must treat citizens equally in the execution of that business.

Now I, being a reasonable and rational person, know that gays already had the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. Five members of the Supreme Court are apparently not reasonable and rational people.; 9/14/15, 9:28 AM
n.n said...: Ruling for congruence based on the pro-choice doctrine is worse. The State-established cult is notorious for creating and progressing moral hazards.; 9/14/15, 9:28 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "The governor has said that he could issue an executive order to no longer require the clerks signature on any marriage license."

-- The he should and end it, instead of dragging it out since it is politically convenient to not take a stand.; 9/14/15, 9:32 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Robert Cook said...

"Marriage" is just a word referring to a particular relationship between two people.

Out of curiosity, Robert, how many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?; 9/14/15, 9:33 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Funny, that's what Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans tried to do in 2011 during the protests when they discontinued direct deposit on per diem and paychecks and forced everyone to pick up their checks personally from the President of the State Senate."

-- No. It isn't the same. If you think NOT doing something is the same as CHANGING how a thing is done but still doing it, then you probably aren't thinking as clearly as you think you are.; 9/14/15, 9:33 AM
MayBee said...: A politician casting aspersions on people? What is this word coming to?; 9/14/15, 9:35 AM
dbp said...: @Jason,

Some things will have to change if/when the government gets out of the marriage business: Some enterprising lawyer can draw-up a contract which covers what had been understood in common law, copyright it and sell the right for a couple to use it for a Dollar. You print it out, take it to a notary, sign it in their presence, get the stamp and call it done. An added benefit it that there could be versions that contractually eliminate the legal possibility of no fault divorce if that is what the couple desires.; 9/14/15, 9:36 AM
Brando said...: It's called following the law. Shame on the turd-monsters who flocked to her support--including a certain presidential candidate who should know better because he clerked for the Supreme Court. I guess picking on gay people is more important than upholding the rule of law.

If you disagree, please explain why this would be any different if she was trying to deny a license to a mixed race couple.

Do your damn job, or resign like many other county clerks around the country did so that they wouldn't have to approve gay marriages. I don't care much for their beliefs, but they at least didn't think they were entitled to abuse their positions just to deny people their legal rights.; 9/14/15, 9:36 AM
Ann Althouse said...: ""Casting aspersions". Is your argument that she is required to express approval? Or that issuing a license is an expression of her approval? "

My point is that citizens have rights, including rights to some things that come from government, such as, for example, schools that don't racially segregate.

Imagine a school officials telling black children that they ought to be restricted to their own schools and are only being put up with in schools with white children because the federal government is forcing it and that they don't really belong here.; 9/14/15, 9:36 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "For instance: if there was a Government License available that would let me legally have sex with Hot Seventeen-year-old American Cheerleaders I might consider applying for it"

The hardest part about having a license for legally having sex with Hot Seventeen-year-old American Cheerleaders?

Waiting a year on the Hot Sixteen-Year-Old Ones.

Law-abiding.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 9:38 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: I don't agree with women having the legal right to vote, but if I were in charge of Voter Registration I would still sign them up.

Even if they didn't have a note from their husbands.

I am Laslo.; 9/14/15, 9:41 AM
mikee said...: She is not issuing a permission slip, she is recording a document.

Her kind of thinking is what makes pro-2nd Amendment gun rights folk rail against "may issue" permits to carry or own handguns. "Shall issue" laws have replaced most of the "may issue" laws as state after state was hit with court cases where the local authority, usually an appointed police chief, would not sign permits because. Just because.

Under "shall issue" rules, the applicant for a permit or license supplies the necessary paperwork to the officials, and the permit is issued without the office holder having a say in the decision, other than to document that the application was complete and correct.

This clerk is a Democrat. She confuses rights with granted authority, and needs to be removed from office for her misunderstanding of her place in the greater scheme of things.

She is not the boss of marriage.; 9/14/15, 9:46 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Johanna Lapp said...

If you need a license to protect your family, the government owes that license to every citizen. There is no "separate but equal" equivalent for the Rainbow-coloreds.

Society, through its government, has decided to recognize a certain type of relationship that it feels is beneficial to society, and to grant certain rights to people who enter into that relationship as a means of encouraging it. That relationship was open to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

If you wish that recognition and those rights, you are welcome to enter into such a relationship. If you do not think that type of relationship is right for you then you do not have to.

If society wanted to extend that recognition to additional types of relationships, it certainly could do so through the democratic process.

At least, that was the way things were until the Supreme Court decided to start making shit up.; 9/14/15, 9:49 AM
MayBee said...: Imagine a school officials telling black children that they ought to be restricted to their own schools and are only being put up with in schools with white children because the federal government is forcing it and that they don't really belong here.

Imagine a president telling his citizens if they don't agree with his Iran deal, they want war.; 9/14/15, 9:51 AM
MayBee said...: Imagine a politician telling people if they don't think birth control should be covered for free, they are waging a war on women.; 9/14/15, 9:51 AM
Mick said...: There is no law that says she has to issue those licenses. The Supreme Court does not make law- the legislature does. The Federal government has no authority to make laws about who can marry, only the states do. Until her state makes a law requiring her to issue that license, in accordance with the SCOTUS "ruling", then she is within her rights to refuse to sign gay "marriage" certificates.; 9/14/15, 9:54 AM
damikesc said...: No, she's casting aspersions on her name being used for something she disapproves of.

If the SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that slavery was legal, I doubt you'd find a lot of people loving that, even if it's the "law of the land". You would probably have some officials refusing to help round up slaves. It'd be equally as "wrong" as what Davis is doing.

And why do people confuse "it is legal" for "it is a right". It is legal to drive a car. You don't have a RIGHT to drive a car. It is legal to be married. You have no RIGHT to a marriage since it involves another person.

Professor, it seems that you disapprove of any expressions of discontent with something you support. That is a rather poor stance to take. You're not much different on this than the Walker haters were about him. She's stating reality --- it was forced upon her via a court order. Do you EXPECT her to sing "Kumbaya" about it?

If the marriage was real, it'd have passed via vote. But it normally didn't when proposed, even if progressive California.

No, she doesn't. Deal with it.

She has no right to express her dissatisfaction? Man, that ruling really IS terrible when it violates the First Amendment.

Funny, that's what Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans tried to do in 2011 during the protests when they discontinued direct deposit on per diem and paychecks and forced everyone to pick up their checks personally from the President of the State Senate.

How is that "withholding" their checks? Their checks are very much there and very much available to be picked up and deposited.

You are confusing "convenience" for "existence" again.

Imagine a school officials telling black children that they ought to be restricted to their own schools and are only being put up with in schools with white children because the federal government is forcing it and that they don't really belong here.

I don't see what is illegal or unconstitutional about that.

You can't go the route of judicial fiat and expect tons of support. If the support existed, you wouldn't have gone the court route.

I can say "Two men claiming to be marriage is a joke and a sham" and I've done, literally, nothing wrong.

You're only going to make the blowback worse. 2.5% of the population isn't very large and if they're going to be dicks about things, the tolerance of the 96.6% isn't infinite. And blowback tends to be ugly.; 9/14/15, 9:57 AM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/15, 9:58 AM
Todd said...: Shouting Thomas said...
9/14/15, 9:45 AM

Wow, just wow.

I don't always agree with Althouse but this is her place. That sort of language and that sort of venom does not make you right nor open to much agreement. You have your opinions and that is fine but you should really adjust how you express them. This is a war of words, here on this forum. Althouse is in no position to do anything but influence, as are we all. Your language does not. Sometimes I can't tell if you are serious or if you play at what you think right-wing/conservatives think. Either way, you are making yourself irrelevant with the content / tone of your rants.

Althouse does not need me to stand up for her (she is more than capable of doing that on her own) but her tolerance of your outbursts impact the rest of us. Please grow up or shut up.; 9/14/15, 9:59 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Maybee says: "Imagine a president telling his citizens if they don't agree with his Iran deal, they want war" and "Imagine a politician telling people if they don't think birth control should be covered for free, they are waging a war on women."

Could you be explicit about the argument you think you are making with these examples? I don't think this 2 things are like the thing that I said, but maybe you're trying to say that I was making a bad analogy, that you made a bad analogy on purpose. Or are you trying to say these 2 other things are bad too and implying that you think I would agree that those 2 things are bad, but I think they're bad too.; 9/14/15, 10:04 AM
Static Ping said...: Ann: Imagine a school officials telling black children that they ought to be restricted to their own schools and are only being put up with in schools with white children because the federal government is forcing it and that they don't really belong here.

Rude. Cruel. Wouldn't vote for them for BOE. Perfectly legal as long they fulfill the requirements of the law.

Elected officials discuss how much they hate Chik-Fil-A. Aspersions! Whatever. Elected officials have also tried to find ways to trying to block them from doing business. Illegal!

I'm sure we can come up with more examples. Wouldn't surprise me if the "aspersion" count was in the hundreds. Or the thousands if we really tried hard. Or even the tens of thousands if we count individuals as separate aspersions. And I mean just this year. The bluster from the SSM issue alone had lots of elected officials essentially cursing out portions of the same people they supposedly represent.

Now if the marriage licenses are invalid because of what she is doing then you may have a point.; 9/14/15, 10:06 AM
damikesc said...: Ill note the goalpost shifting here mirrors gay marriage over all.

Initially, it was "she should do her job"
Now it's "she should do her job HAPPILY"

The same as "our marriage won't impact you" to suing bakeries for not making a wedding cake.; 9/14/15, 10:08 AM
MayBee said...: What I am saying is this: Politicians cast aspersions on the people they "serve" all the time. You can come up with any analogy you want to try to gin up outrage.
But it doesn't matter. They don't have to be nice, and they aren't nice. They certainly aren't nice to people who oppose them.
This is nothing new. How much do people care?; 9/14/15, 10:08 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Out of curiosity, Robert, how many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?"

Ummm...there's a difference between the physical structure of an organism--and how we differentiate the parts of the physical structure one from another by nomenclature--and a personal relationship between two people. What is a "church?" What is a "club?"

There is nothing intrinsic in the word "marriage" or the social relationship described by that word that requires the two joined cannot each be of the same gender as the other.; 9/14/15, 10:09 AM
dbp said...: A war ends when one side decides to stop fighting. Althouse pretends that this war is over and her side won. It may be over eventually, it is not over yet. I don't know if we can get to 38 but I'll bet Kentucky will be on-board.; 9/14/15, 10:10 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Gov. officials & politicians (of certain persuasions) cast aspersions on lawful firearm owners pretty much all the time, up to and including implying we're partially responsible for various murders & violent crimes. That's ok, though, I guess; it's only when aspersions are cast upon GOOD people that it's a problem.

When police chiefs & other law enforcement personnel disparage lawful firearm possession & use (with, you know, 2nd Amend. protection) no one seems to mind, even though those people might theoretically (and at time have, in fact) used force or violence wrongly based on their expressed beliefs. Kim Davis might, at worst, temporarily inconvenience a small number of people. If the Prof. is against gov officials expressing and acting on opinions counter to citizens' rights I'll look forward to many future posts on the subject.; 9/14/15, 10:11 AM
MayBee said...: Yeah, that's it, damikesc. She's doing her job. Or at least not stopping other people from doing theirs.

So we don't really need to ask more of her. We don't seem to ask more of any other politician.

(I didn't support her not doing her job. But there's a process for getting politicians to do their jobs. We don't always do it, though. Sometimes we allow politicians to not do what they are expected to do); 9/14/15, 10:11 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "No, she's casting aspersions on her name being used for something she disapproves of."

Yes, but she is the govt official in charge of something that involves the rights of citizens. She wants to oppose those rights from her govt position. She wants the licenses that people get to be illegitimate licenses, fake things that are issuing only because the federal government is using force. She is not just a citizen expressing disapproval. She is the government official refusing to perform official duties and using the power of government as her tool of expression. That part is not self-expression. That is the government acting, impairing individual rights. She's not just saying she disapproves of same-sex marriages. She's saying the licenses that issue are "unauthorized" -- in her view. She may be wrong about that, but she's holding office and trying to use her power to cause the licenses be, not official licenses, but things that have language on them that makes them not real licenses ("the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order"). She should not be using govt power that way.; 9/14/15, 10:13 AM
Jaq said...: Imagine a school officials telling black children that they ought to be restricted to their own schools and are only being put up with in schools with white children because the federal government is forcing it and that they don't really belong here.

Or maybe a democratic dam was about to break on racial segregation and we shortcut the national discussion that might have taken place in our impatience and handed over power over our lives to judges, or rather judges took it, all but eradicating the tenth amendment in the process, without going through the process of a constitutional amendment.

Maybe they could change one simple word in the Constitution:

Instead of The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[

We could say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to a Federal Judge.[; 9/14/15, 10:15 AM
Mick said...: "Law prof" (surely a misnomer) said,

"My point is that citizens have rights, including rights to some things that come from government, such as, for example, schools that don't racially segregate".

The right of equal protection of the laws is merely repetitive of the rights of the bill of rights-- which are given by god, not the government, and enforced them on the states for the benefit of newly freed black slaves. The 14th Amendment did not create any new rights.

The "right" you speak of is not for "schools", it is not to be discriminated against, based on race, when that school is established. There is no "right" to gay "marriage" since there is nothing reflective of the laws of nature in gay "marriage", and in fact is totally against the law of nature and nature's god. Rights expressed by the 14th Amendment reflect natural rights, given by god, not unnatural demands of a special interest group. Polygamy has more legitimacy than gay "marriage".; 9/14/15, 10:16 AM
Dr Weevil said...: A question no one seems to have asked:

Did the gay couple from Ohio she refused to marry get married somewhere else? It's been widely reported that they could have gotten married in any Ohio county, and that they couldn't get to Kim Davis's county without driving through at least one Kentucky county whose clerk would have gladly married them. So, did they get married on the way home? Or since then? Or are they still single?

If they haven't married, are we allowed to criticize them as liars and frauds who only pretended to want to get married so they could have Kim Davis thrown in jail for disapproving of their lifestyle? (I seem to recall that the Roe of Roe v. Wade wasn't actually pregnant when she claimed to need an abortion.)

And why aren't the professional reporters asking such an obvious question? Do they already know the answer and not want to reveal it? (In that case, the answer must be 'no'.) Or are they too stupid to have thought of the question?

By the way, am I wrong to be amused that one of the NYT stories on the case was written by "Sheryl Gay Strolbergaug".; 9/14/15, 10:17 AM
Jason said...: Riddle me this, libtards: did King Henry VIII have a natural right to compel Thomas More, under pain of death, to sign the Oath of Supremacy?; 9/14/15, 10:17 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: My state recently passed a law making the sale and use of fireworks legal. The law included language that prevents counties and cities from passing more-restrictive rules about fireworks use. Many city officials are unhappy with the law (they'd like to pass their own restrictions) and have said so publicly. The mayor for a city near where I live said (paraphrasing) that it was a bad law that he couldn't do anything about, but he was sure it would result in dumb people hurting themselves, and he's instructed his police to look for ways to write tickets for firework use if they can come up with some other possible violation. The city's chief of police agreed (it was a press conference) and talked about how the law was dumb and needed to be changed since not everyone would be responsible and "careless people will get hurt, and might hurt kids."
Are those aspersions wrong? Are they analogous to a school official saying they're only accepting black schoolchildren because they've been ordered to do so?; 9/14/15, 10:18 AM
BrianE said...: I don't think she's "casting aspersions", but her position makes the best of a bad situation. I think she's reasonably trying to accommodate same sex couples, without violating her conscience.

The Kentucky legislature needs to step up and allow county clerks an 'opt out' similar to other states. In the meantime, she is an elected official and the voters can decide if they want her to continue to represent her in that position.

Whatever the relationship between two homosexual couples is, it isn't marriage. You can call it marriage-- but it isn't.

We all know this is payback-- it's unfortunate that many gay couples are being used by groups hostile to our society and the concept of marriage.; 9/14/15, 10:18 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "What I am saying is this: Politicians cast aspersions on the people they "serve" all the time. You can come up with any analogy you want to try to gin up outrage. But it doesn't matter. They don't have to be nice, and they aren't nice. They certainly aren't nice to people who oppose them. This is nothing new. How much do people care?"

Thanks for answering my question. I agree that politicians say mean things about citizens frequently, but what Davis is trying to do is something more than that. She is trying to use the power of her office — which has a legal obligation to issue licenses without violating rights — to violate the rights of citizens. She's trying to cause the licenses that issue to be invalid and not what is required. That's more than just insulting people and using insults that are exaggerations or lies.

As for niceness... a lack of niceness can in some cases be a violation of rights, as in my school hypothetical. It would violate the children's rights to tell them they don't belong in the school because they are black. It would be more than just speech layered on top of fulfillment of what is legally required because the speech of the official would be a violation of rights.; 9/14/15, 10:19 AM
deepelemblues said...: "There is nothing intrinsic in the word "marriage" or the social relationship described by that word that requires the two joined cannot each be of the same gender as the other."

Nothing intrinsic in the social relationship except thousands of years of human history and almost every society ever, including ones like ancient Greece that were very accepting of (some) kinds of homosexual relationships.

Not that that necessarily means marriage should be restricted to just heterosexual couples in our contemporary society, but acting like it hasn't had a strict definition across nearly the entirety of human cultures for however many thousands of years is just wrong. There were formal or semi-formal homosexual relationship statuses in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and some parts of Mesopotamia and China and North America. I've never read anything that says they were considered to be the same as heterosexual marriages either legally or in unofficial custom, though.; 9/14/15, 10:19 AM
dbp said...: ""the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order""

The licences are being issued pursuant to a federal court order. She is using her elected position to point out the truth: The feds are pushing-around the people of Kentucky and the majority of Americans.; 9/14/15, 10:19 AM
Unknown said...: Jesus Christ, Shouting Thomas, are you off your meds?

I defy you to talk like you talk in this forum to your 'friends'. Do you talk to your kids about 'Fag Hag's' & 'Nig....' ? I'm willing to bet you don't, easy to talk militant on a blog.

You are a coward:

"The entire liberal welfare state, feminist and fag hag infrastructure is going to be annihilated by Muslim invaders, and the fag hags want to do the same thing here.

History might very well be written by a triumphant American Islamic State."

You imply that the "Muslims" are going to win/defeat Western Societies as if it is a forgone conclusion.

It might be because of wordy cowards such as yourself.

Stop trolling this blog and this community. If you cannot comment without getting your Stormfront account mixed up from your Blogger account, perhaps you should just stick to Stormfront.

(I missed the comments when they were closed, but some people make you wish for censorship); 9/14/15, 10:20 AM
Jaq said...: We have already established that Robert Cook is either not smart enough to even understand the argument you are making, or that he is fundamentally dishonest. I am not sure why you keep trying to get him to understand a concept that he clearly cannot understand, either for reasons of intelligence or politics.

Cook, for example, declares a negative:

There is nothing intrinsic in the word "marriage" or the social relationship described by that word that requires the two joined cannot each be of the same gender as the other

which, I am thinking that if he has taken Philosophy 101, even he knows is an awfully high hurdle to prove. Yet he insouciantly declares it as if it were a fact.

A more honest statement would have been There is nothing intrinsic in the word "marriage" [to my way of thinking] or the social relationship described by that word that requires the two joined cannot each be of the same gender as the other

Yet he insists that he need only consult his own feelings to speak for America as a whole.; 9/14/15, 10:21 AM
Jaq said...: BTW, Shouting Thomas is an utter jerkwad. I wish he was on the other side with so many other jerkwads.; 9/14/15, 10:22 AM
Static Ping said...: Ann: Yes, but she is the govt official in charge of something that involves the rights of citizens. She wants to oppose those rights from her govt position.... She is the government official refusing to perform official duties and using the power of government as her tool of expression.

And suddenly the goalposts have moved.

Your school integration example was officials expressing their disapproval of a duty but performing the duty anyway. That's allowed. It happens daily. Aspersions are a natural act of the political animal.

Of course, you description of what you disapprove of sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court.; 9/14/15, 10:23 AM
dbp said...: My observation is that people don't like getting pushed around. It is a little churlish to expect the victims to pretend they are happy about it.; 9/14/15, 10:23 AM
Jaq said...: The licences are being issued pursuant to a federal court order. She is using her elected position to point out the truth: The feds are pushing-around the people of Kentucky and the majority of Americans.

Truth is no defense when the slander is against liberalism. You should know that by now.; 9/14/15, 10:24 AM
rhhardin said...: She should resign and open a pizza parlor, if she wants to be left alone.; 9/14/15, 10:24 AM
Static Ping said...: Ann: As for niceness... a lack of niceness can in some cases be a violation of rights, as in my school hypothetical.

No, it is not.; 9/14/15, 10:25 AM
CStanley said...: When you compare this with the federal court order for desegregation of school children, of course the sympathies lie with the children.

The question is as it has always been with the civil rights movement for gays: will everyone come to see acceptance of homosexuality as the same as acceptance of racial equality?

Those who favor SSM legalization generally do see it that way, but for many others in our society it is a false analogy. I don't see it as ethically wrong to deny SSM in the way that it is ethically wrong to segregate black students from white. It doesn't a disparagement to exclude SSM because the state's only real interest in creating marital contracts has to do with natural procreation.; 9/14/15, 10:26 AM
Ann Althouse said...: ""What I am saying is this: Politicians cast aspersions on the people they "serve" all the time. You can come up with any analogy you want to try to gin up outrage. But it doesn't matter. They don't have to be nice, and they aren't nice. They certainly aren't nice to people who oppose them. This is nothing new. How much do people care?" Thanks for answering my question. I agree that politicians say mean things about citizens frequently, but what Davis is trying to do is something more than that. She is trying to use the power of her office — which has a legal obligation to issue licenses without violating rights — to violate the rights of citizens. She's trying to cause the licenses that issue to be invalid and not what is required. That's more than just insulting people and using insults that are exaggerations or lies. "

Another point I want to make here is that it's perfectly appropriate to call out government officials who say things about citizens that you think are bad. That's part of what I was doing by using the word "aspersions." And when a govt official uses his status in office to leverage speech against citizens there is greater reason to criticize. Even if it's only an expression of opinion, this powerful person should be held to a high standard for appropriating the office for the expression of opinions.

I'm willing to accept that Davis has a personal opinion that matters a lot to her and that motivates her not to want to have involvement in something she deeply believes is wrong. But she's using her speech to disparage the validity of the licenses, licenses that people are entitled to and that have value when they are not invalid.; 9/14/15, 10:26 AM
Etienne said...: States Rights ended with the Civil War. People need to embrace Federalism or kill themselves.; 9/14/15, 10:27 AM
Brando said...: "Initially, it was "she should do her job"
Now it's "she should do her job HAPPILY""

I couldn't care less if a government official does their job happily, so long as they do their job. Not every government employee is going to agree with every government policy they are required to follow--but you do your damn job.

Now, if she wants some sort of religious accommodation so that one of her deputies in an acting capacity can handle the small number of gay marriages that cross her desk? Fine, she's entitled to teh same as a Muslim food inspector who does not want to handle meat. But you don't have the right to prevent the job from being done at all.

It's lovely that in the more fevered parts of the American Right there was all sorts of hysteria about "sharia law" taking over the U.S.--I'm pretty sure all these same people are worried about Kim Davis trying to impose Christian law on her fellow citizens.; 9/14/15, 10:27 AM
Jason said...: Thomas Paine was an asshole, too.

I rather like the guy.; 9/14/15, 10:27 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said... She is the government official refusing to perform official duties and using the power of government as her tool of expression. That part is not self-expression. That is the government acting, impairing individual rights. She's not just saying she disapproves of same-sex marriages. She's saying the licenses that issue are "unauthorized" -- in her view. She may be wrong about that, but she's holding office and trying to use her power to cause the licenses be, not official licenses, but things that have language on them that makes them not real licenses ("the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order"). She should not be using govt power that way.

So again I don't approve of Davis' actions (nor her reasoning) but isn't she an Executive branch official? I thought executive branch decisions were subject to executive discretion (prosecutorial discretion, etc) whereby those officials and agencies are given an awful lot of leeway (by the courts) in what cases they pursue, what spending priorities they set, etc. I don't think it's reasonable to say just about this one case that now executive officials aren't allowed to use their office to express opinions or shape official action--that happens all the time! An officeholder using the power of their office to try and carry out an ideological agenda that some think is contrary to individual rights is like 60% of what the Federal gov does on any given day.
I don't disagree that she "should not" be doing that. That kind of thing happens quite frequently, though, and usually complaints of a weaponized or politicized bureaucracy don't seem to move people like the Prof.--but maybe I've just missed those posts.; 9/14/15, 10:27 AM
Jason said...: Hey, Mark. Can you point out to me where in the Constitution it says legislators have a right to direct deposit? I'm not seeing it.; 9/14/15, 10:29 AM
Jaq said...: But she's using her speech to disparage the validity of the licenses, licenses that people are entitled to and that have value when they are not invalid.

So other than truthfully describing the circumstances under which the licenses are issued, where is the "disparagement"?; 9/14/15, 10:30 AM
BrianE said...: "But she's using her speech to disparage the validity of the licenses, licenses that people are entitled to and that have value when they are not invalid."- Ann Althouse

Are you saying it will make a difference to a judge somewhere deciding that marriage licenses issued without her signature are invalid because Kim Davis said so?; 9/14/15, 10:33 AM
CStanley said...: I interpreted her comments about the licenses much differently. I didn't think it had anything to do with aspersions on the couples or on the validity of the marriages, except insofar as the courts created a situation where a remedy is now needed before the licenses can be valid. If the statue defines the marriage as opposite gender unions only, then even if the federal courts opinion overrules that there is now a situation where the new type of union has no statutory definition.

Question: if the court finds something objectionable in a state statute, shouldn't there be an order to amend the statute, instead of ordering executive branch officials to ignore the existing statutes?; 9/14/15, 10:33 AM
Jason said...: The fact that all those licenses were, in fact, issued isn't enough for Althouse.

Now she wants Davis to shut up. She wants Davis silenced.

Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist. Every. Time.; 9/14/15, 10:34 AM
Robert Cook said...: @Todd (at 9:59)

Shouting Tommy is an angry and seemingly half-deranged crank who has long visited this blog, though he is absent for long periods, as well. Prof. Althouse tolerates him for reasons of her own, though he rarely adds anything to the comments but vitriolic non-sequiturs.; 9/14/15, 10:37 AM
MayBee said...: But she's using her speech to disparage the validity of the licenses, licenses that people are entitled to and that have value when they are not invalid.

I think, as others have said, she is using her speech to speak to what she sees as the legality of the order. Which, again, I don't support her cause but I can imagine a cause for which I would imagine her saying such a thing.

As for the people getting licenses from her- they will either assume they are valid and get one, or worry it isn't and go elsewhere. Of course it's better to be able to go to your hometown and get the license. But I suspect people will flock to this location to get one of these special protest-y licenses.
That's how things seem to work these days.; 9/14/15, 10:40 AM
rhhardin said...: Homosexuality is and has been accepted. The proper acceptance is civil indifference tinged with amusement.

Do what you want but we get to make jokes about it.

The reverse is available and perfectly fine too. How many heterosexuals would not appreciate something pointing out how ridiculous attraction to female genitals is, and here it is obsessing your typical male for most of his life without explanation.

Who better to see that clearly than a gay person.; 9/14/15, 10:41 AM
Jason said...: Thomas may be indelicate and intemperate, but he is also correct. there is more truth in every post he writes than in a thousand Cook posts in which he embraces the truly deranged delusion of socialism.; 9/14/15, 10:42 AM
Fabi said...: Althouse deserves a round of applause for allowing the putz to comment here. It's shows a lot of integrity. Brava!; 9/14/15, 10:49 AM
Michael K said...: "The government lacks the right to deny them their marriage."

So why not just say they are "married" and let it go at that ? Why should the license or the government matter ?

It only matters so they can push a Christian's face in the matter and gloat. That's what this farce is all about.

The gays have gone far beyond tolerance, which they have had for some time, to demanding celebration and that will eventually cost them dearly.

I'm in Europe watching the future as Obama will import thousands of Muslims. Fasten your seat belts, girls and girls.; 9/14/15, 10:53 AM
deepelemblues said...: It's wrong when government officials say they disagree with the people possessing a right the law or the courts declare they possess? A right the official doesn't like.

Well shit, professor, I expect some stern words now about 99 out of 100 Democrat officials and their casting of "aspersions" on the Second Amendment. And any government official who disagrees with Citizens United. Gay marriage is far down the totem pole of rights compared to free speech and effective self-defense.; 9/14/15, 10:56 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said....And when a govt official uses his status in office to leverage speech against citizens there is greater reason to criticize. Even if it's only an expression of opinion, this powerful person should be held to a high standard for appropriating the office for the expression of opinions.

I did a quick search for "Koch" on your site and found only 2 references (in the last 18 months or so) to the President and Harry Reid criticizing individual citizens (by name) while in office/speaking from their official positions (floor of Senate, WH dinner "joke"). I note the Media didn't much seem to mind, although I couldn't think of when anything like that happened under that rights-trampling cowboy Bush.; 9/14/15, 11:00 AM
CStanley said...: And any government official who disagrees with Citizens United.

Particularly the official who holds the office of the presidency.; 9/14/15, 11:02 AM
deepelemblues said...: Private citizens being smeared as traitors to democracy because they're rich (but not leftists) just doesn't tug at the heart the way homosexuals do, Hoodlum. Obviously.; 9/14/15, 11:05 AM
Etienne said...: The only reason we are discussing this incident, is the press is fanning the flames.

Most of us don't give a shit about queers, or give a shit about county clerks. We don't even give a shit what they argue about between themselves.

But the press has to make this out like she's Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door.

She ain't no Wallace, and she ain't no Saint. She's a fat and ugly country hick who put her name on a ballot for a job no one else wanted.

Where we should be angry is being manipulated by the eastern press, who thinks everything in Harlem out to be the guiding light for America.

Grab your socks, put your pants on, and go to work. Stop reading this crap.; 9/14/15, 11:05 AM
MayBee said...: And yes, of course it is your blog and you can call out any government official you want for disparaging people who oppose them. One county clerk in Kentucky may well be worth all the national attention for saying something about the marriage licenses her office is now handing out.

But for my money, people with more power (the President) or more ability to harm (the IRS) are more important. I think our national attention gets too drawn in by the shiny minutia.; 9/14/15, 11:07 AM
Mick said...: "And any government official who disagrees with Citizens United.

Particularly the official who holds the office of the presidency".

Citizens United was about corporate advertising as free speech, not unfettered "campaign contributions". The way it is projected by the left and by the Usurper Hussein Obama is a total lie.; 9/14/15, 11:08 AM
mtrobertslaw said...: "The license will state they are issued pursuant to a federal court order." It is true that these licenses are in fact being "issued pursuant to a federal court order".

So what is wrong with printing this true statement on the license? Far from casting aspersions, many could easily interpret this as providing additional authenticity to the license.; 9/14/15, 11:12 AM
Jason said...: The left loves this issue and desperately needs it. Why? It took the spotlight off of Planned Parenthood for two weeks.; 9/14/15, 11:13 AM
Jaq said...: She ain't no Wallace, and she ain't no Saint. She's a fat and ugly country hick who put her name on a ballot for a job no one else wanted.

You see how easy it is to delegitimize democracy? That's the side I want to be on! The one that hates huge tranches of the America people!

Fat people, ugly people (I don't really find her that ugly, BTW), country folk, "right wingers"... need not run for office!; 9/14/15, 11:15 AM
Gahrie said...: She is trying to use the power of her office ... to violate the rights of citizens.

I thought that that was OK under Obama? Or is it just bad when someone on the Right does it?; 9/14/15, 11:15 AM
Qwinn said...: How many American blacks would appreciate and support your conflating the Civil Rights movement with gay marriage?

Based on the black vote on Prop 8 in the most liberal state in the Union, even in opposition to the political party they vote for overwhelmingly, I'd guess it's roughly what my calculus teacher referred to as "the limit approaching 0".; 9/14/15, 11:23 AM
Nichevo said...: AA 10:04 could you be explicit about the argument you think you are making with these examples?

So, professor, can we expect that you will be granting such requests from us when you say something that we don't understand?; 9/14/15, 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Tim iV:
"We have already established that Robert Cook is either not smart enough to even understand the argument you are making, or that he is fundamentally dishonest"

Those two states are not mutually exclusive, as cookie has proven.

Ms. Althouse strikes me as a woman going through a change-of-life; many of her arguments lately strike me as irrational, convoluted, (hormonally driven?) and seem to be more rooted in her personal feelings about protecting her homosexual son (and legitimizing him as 'normal' or 'mainstream' so that she can absolve herself of whatever guilt/disappointment she may feel is due her for having driven him that way) than being grounded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I do not advocate for the denial of civil rights to any citizen, even to those citizens I disagree with. I am against the government having anything to do with defining marriage actually. I was married in Germany. All marriages in Germany are technically civil unions. My marriage ceremony was a candlelit signing of our marriage contract with one another. It took place in the mayor's office of our small town. If you want to be married in a church ceremony you can do that as well, but a church wedding is not a legal marriage in the eyes of the State. You have to have the contract. Pretty good solution to the church vs. state issue.

That, to me, is how we should solve this problem, although I fear that the gay facisti would then force churches to marry them too...and that Ms. Althouse, protecting her cub and addled by whatever is coursing currently through her veins, would cobble together some sort of argument in support.; 9/14/15, 11:24 AM
MayBee said...: I would also say the activists for gay marriage have said an awful lot of bad things about Christians. They've also acted to make people who have disparaging thoughts about gay marriage actually participate in their celebrations. So for many, having people who don't like them be forced to participate seems like a bonus.

(I want to be very clear I am not disparaging gay people. I see the gay activists as a very different group. And like most activists, unpleasant); 9/14/15, 11:25 AM
Unknown said...: The revolt is coming. Davis should be lauded for not accepting the militia protection. Not the professor who instead asserts that marriage license form that says court order is an aspersion. Davis name must be removed from the form to reasonably accomdate her religious objection. The court should invalidate the Kentucky marriage laws altogether and make this thing moot; 9/14/15, 11:26 AM
Gahrie said...: My point is that citizens have rights, including rights to some things that come from government, such as, for example, schools that don't racially segregate.

Unalienable and Constitutional rights trump civil rights. Her right to free speech certainly trumps any right homosexuals have to "feel good". She has the right to express her opinion about the decision and the licenses. Under current law, homosexuals have a right to the licenses, but they have no right to silence those who oppose gay marriage.; 9/14/15, 11:26 AM
Qwinn said...: And I still dont think I ever got an answer to my question: How does saying Kim Davis shouldn't have her job not violate Article VI ("No Religious Test...")?; 9/14/15, 11:28 AM
John henry said...: Blogger tim in vermont said...

Plus we can't let a bunch of right wing hicks in a red state govern themselves!

Certainly not. They might elect a socialist mayor of their biggest city, then rep, then Senator, then, dare I say it, President!

Oops. I mean left wing hicks.

Seriously, Tim, I lover VT. I was born in Ticonderoga, just across the lake, and grew up watching Channel 3. Only station we got. I had a terribly deprived childhood with only one TV channel and that only in B&W. I was reduced to reading books for entertainment.

John Henry; 9/14/15, 11:32 AM
Anonymous said...: People that are going after Kim Davis, praise Obama for doing the same thing....http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/obamas-policy-strategy-ignore-laws-077486
Either we are a nation of laws, or we're not...and with this administration...we obviously are NOT....; 9/14/15, 11:37 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Is it really just a question of who, whom? I remember quite a number of politicians and admin officials (Republican & Democrat alike) saying all sorts of unkind things about bankers and bank employees after the financial crisis. Chrysler & GM bondholders definitely got screwed, and there was a lot of talk about deliberately screwing employees of certain firms (Goldman Sachs, etc). I don't remember much sympathy for those citizens, nor complaints that gov. officials shouldn't express their feelings/opinions nor use the power of their offices to "go after" those "bad" people.

You know, a few bankers I've met are gay! Just sayin'.; 9/14/15, 11:39 AM
Qwinn said...: I'll have to go back and review all the condemnations from Ann or anyone else on the Left for Harry Reid's continuous non-stop demonization of the Koch brothers from his government position. Oddly, a search isn't turning anything up... wonder why that is.; 9/14/15, 11:44 AM
Old Dad said...: I only have two questions. Did the government attempt to discern if there were reasonable accommodations for Ms. Davis' religious beliefs? If so, were they implemented?

We'll eventually find out, millions of dollars later, through the serial lawsuits to follow.

We certainly appear to be a contentious and ridiculous species.; 9/14/15, 11:46 AM
Hagar said...: Professor, you are putting words in Ms. Davis mouth that she has not said.

Her stand is simply that:
1. Kentucky State law require her to personally sign these licenses in order for them to be legal.
2. She is not going to do that.
3. The remedy is to have the State of Kentucky change the law, so that she does not have to sign them.

This may e accomplished by an executive order from the governor, if the state law allows that, or it can wait for the legislature to act in the next session. There is no emergency requiring immediate action to save the citizens of Kentucky from harm.; 9/14/15, 11:48 AM
Anthony said...: >>I proclaim Seattle as a Sanctuary City for those that want sex with Hot Seventeen-year-old American Cheerleaders.

Finally! I'm in.; 9/14/15, 11:48 AM
Misinforminimalism said...: How dare a single person defy a law that was duly imposed by five people?; 9/14/15, 11:55 AM
Jason said...: RFRA allows her name to be taken off the form. In fact, RFRA requires it.; 9/14/15, 11:59 AM
Hagar said...: The requirement for the Clerk's personal signature probably began with the legislature wanting the applicants to appear before the Clerk so that their identities could be verified, and in most(?) states I think they also have to present a medical certificate that they are free from STDs and certain other communicable and highly feared diseases. Probably they must also swear that they are citizens of the United States.

Are any of these requirements also on the Kentucky forms?; 9/14/15, 12:01 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Methinks Althouse still does not understand.

Premise 1. Law must be deeply imbued with tradition - almost to the point that Tradition=Law. Otherwise, there is no respect, no acceptance, no understanding. Yes, Law can change. But change should come carefully and in small steps.

Premise 2. That heterosexual bonds are qualitatively different from homosexual bonds is one of the longest and most universally held traditions shared among all humanity, planet-wide.

Conclusion: An abrupt reversal of long held tradition, imposed by fiat, results in diminished respect for Law.; 9/14/15, 12:02 PM
Jason said...: By that I mean, RFRA requires that the government interest in ensuring the equal protection clause is enforced using the means least burdensome to individual religious freedom. Changing the form is less burdensome than jailing someone.

The Governor could make the change via executive order, cite the KY RFRA as the legal authority, expand the measure to all counties in KY and be done with it.; 9/14/15, 12:03 PM
Levi Starks said...: It would seem that Athouse thinks it's possible for a court force a free citizen to display an affirmative agreement on something thing with which they do not agree. Courts can force action, courts can gag dissent, courts cannot change minds.
Shows a serious lack of understanding of human nature.
When Obama took office, and pledged to uphold the constitution, he knew full well in his heart that he intended to disregard various laws that were on the books at that time because he found them to ideologically objectionable.; 9/14/15, 12:04 PM
Cog said...: For this moment, anyway, Davis has become the nation’s leading defender of marriage as the primordial human relational instiution. By not issuing licenses Davis has powerfully underscored the warnings expressed in the arguments of the minority opinions in the Court. She shines a light on just how much the Anthony Kennedy-led Court damaged the use of language and upended the rule of law.; 9/14/15, 12:04 PM
Robert Cook said...: "It only matters so they can push a Christian's face in the matter and gloat. That's what this farce is all about."

No, it's about gay couples, (many of whom are Christians), wanting to get married.; 9/14/15, 12:08 PM
Roughcoat said...: Is homosexuality caused by nature or nuture? I forget.; 9/14/15, 12:10 PM
m stone said...: How dare a single person defy a law that was duly imposed by five people?

Sarcasm noted.

You can dare if you submit to a higher law.; 9/14/15, 12:11 PM
Hagar said...: I would think that a judge before giving a "must issue" order would inquire whether the legislature had any legitimate governmental interest in mind when it made the county clerks' personal signatures a requirement for the forms to be "legal."
This is above Kim Davis' powers to answer. The DoJ needs to address the State of Kentucky.; 9/14/15, 12:15 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...heterosexual bonds are qualitatively different from homosexual bonds."

How so, and how do you know so?; 9/14/15, 12:18 PM
Robert Cook said...: "For this moment, anyway, Davis has become the nation’s leading defender of marriage as the primordial human relational institution."

Rather, she has become the latest petty tyrant seeking to use her official authority to subvert the legal rights of American citizens.; 9/14/15, 12:21 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Robert Cook said...Rather, she has become the latest petty tyrant seeking to use her official authority to subvert the legal rights of American citizens.

Really Robert? The last?; 9/14/15, 12:24 PM
Robert Cook said...: HoodlumDoodlum:

Your reading skills are rusty: "latest" does not mean "last."; 9/14/15, 12:26 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Small screen, RC, but fair enough that last <> latest...I doubt she's even that, though!; 9/14/15, 12:32 PM
MayBee said...: Here is a link to the certificates as of today.; 9/14/15, 12:36 PM
MayBee said...: From Buzzfeed:

"Davis was jailed Thursday for refusing to issue licenses in accordance with an August 12 order from U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning. After Davis was arrested, five of her deputies told Judge Bunning they would issue the licenses. However, Bunning acknowledged in court that he did not know if a license issued without Davis’s consent “is valid or not … I am not saying it is or it isn’t.”
Kentucky law requires the county clerk to issue marriage licenses. “The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county …” the statute states. But on the licenses issued Friday, the forms state: “Issued … in the office of Rowan County.” Normally they state, “Issued in the office of” and include the name of the clerk, Davis.
... Judge Bunning acknowledged it was unclear if licenses issued without Davis’s authority were valid. “That is why the judge said marriage licenses may not be valid,” Mason said. “We don’t know. No one could give us an answer.”

What a mess.; 9/14/15, 12:47 PM
Gospace said...: I pointed out in a previous Althouse post on this that there is no currently valid definition of marriage in Kentucky. And, today, here's an article pointing out the same thing: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/stop_saying_samesex_marriage_is_the_law_of_the_land.html
The KY state constitution defines marriage. The SC invalidated that definition. They do not, and no judge or court, has the power to write or rewrite law. It could reasonably be argued that since the SC ruling, ALL marriages that have occurred in KY are invalid, since there is no valid law until the KY Constitution is changed.; 9/14/15, 12:48 PM
Gabriel said...: Certainly we all have a Fourteenth Amendment right to be protected from having "aspersions" cast upon our marriages.

My eyes always roll like this when I'm appreciating my civil rights.; 9/14/15, 12:51 PM
Known Unknown said...: I don't favor Davis, but where might one find the "Law of the Land" written down?; 9/14/15, 1:03 PM
deepelemblues said...: "Citizens United was about corporate advertising as free speech, not unfettered "campaign contributions". The way it is projected by the left and by the Usurper Hussein Obama is a total lie.

Errrr, no.

Citizens United was about the State trying to stop any kind of corporation from disseminating political opinions using as much of its own money as it pleased, if the State wished to do so. Whether it be a Fortune 500 company or a group of citizens forming a political action committee. You remember, the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances?; 9/14/15, 1:06 PM
Qwinn said...: Cook, you cant be that stupid. They are qualitatively different because only through heterosexual relations can the entire human race continue. And this normalization of unproductive relationships is coming at a time when demographic forecasts are, quite frankly, terrifying. If human or at least civilizational extinction isnt a valid basis for detecting a substantial difference, what the hell is?; 9/14/15, 1:28 PM
Qwinn said...: Incidentally, I am continually apalled at the insistence of the Left in pushing every socialist doctrine under the sun as "For the childruns!!11!!", and then claiming that the only institution that actually DOES help children has nothing to do with children at all. Nothing whatsoever. No rational basis! Really!; 9/14/15, 1:33 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Robert Cook (12:08pm) insists that the questions is "about gay couples . . . wanting to get married". Neither he nor anyone else seems interested in my 10:17am question: have the plaintiffs gotten married? They could easily do so in any county of Ohio (where at least one gay couple lives) or in 117 of the 120 counties in Kentucky. Have they? If they haven't, then this wasn't about gay couples getting married, it was about gay couples (or at least one gay couple) wanting someone who openly disapproves of gay marriage thrown in jail. Isn't anyone else the slightest bit interested in the answer to my question?; 9/14/15, 1:36 PM
CWJ said...: Dr. Weevil,

Is it really true that the only SS couple that has requested a license from this county came from out of state?; 9/14/15, 1:47 PM
CWJ said...: Robert Cook,

By the logic of you argument, there is nothing intrinsic in the concept of marriage about the number two. And yet, you've used that number twice now as if it were.; 9/14/15, 1:51 PM
Mark said...: CWJ, the story I read about the court case mentioned four couples who had sued and caused the jailing.

I suspect it is a talking point to always refer to 'the one couple'.; 9/14/15, 2:12 PM
Mark said...: Also, the first same sex couple to get a certificate were from Rowan County.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/meet-1st-sex-couple-marriage-license-rowan-county/story?id=33533948

Claims of out-of-state couple demanding would not appear to be accurate, or at least exaggerated as in-county gay couples have already been married.; 9/14/15, 2:19 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Althouse sides with the haters:
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/commentary/their-views/cartoon-september-12; 9/14/15, 2:34 PM
Gahrie said...: Rather, she has become the latest petty tyrant seeking to use her official authority to subvert the legal rights of American citizens.

..and just like the rest of them, she is a Democrat.; 9/14/15, 2:50 PM
Ken B said...: AA:
"My point is that citizens have rights, including rights to some things that come from government, such as, for example, schools that don't racially segregate."

Indeed. Which is completely irrelevant to the point I made. You complain she is "casting aspersions." First, like many here, I don't see any aspersions. Second, by framing the issue in terms of aspersions you imply the problem is her attitude not here non-compliance. In the school cases school boards had to integrate, but board members didn't have to change their private opinions. She has to issue the license; she doesn't have to like it.; 9/14/15, 2:50 PM
Ken B said...: Imagine Ann the law required her to issue the licence AND to say "You have my personal approval." Would her RFRA or free speech claim be stronger than it is now?; 9/14/15, 2:55 PM
Michael K said...: Is this still going on ?

Can Althouse resist the urge to bash Christians ?

No, next question.; 9/14/15, 2:55 PM
Robert Cook said...: "They are qualitatively different because only through heterosexual relations can the entire human race continue."

There are marriages between men and women that produce no children. Marriage has purposes aside from reproduction. There are many orphan children who would prefer to have families; childless couples, whether straight or gay, can adopt and parent some of these children without families.; 9/14/15, 3:06 PM
Robert Cook said...: "By the logic of you argument, there is nothing intrinsic in the concept of marriage about the number two."

No, there isn't.

"And yet, you've used that number twice now as if it were."

Two is the most common number in a marriage in our culture and in our time, but cultures throughout history have seen marriages with multiple partners.; 9/14/15, 3:08 PM
stan said...: "Ever notice that radical leftists never say, "It's the law of the land" when speaking of a national law they fundamentally disagree with?

Barack Obama and the Defense of Marriage Act is a glaring example. DOMA was the law of the land, but Mr. Obama's Justice Department refused to enforce the law, and the Department was the only agency responsible for its enforcement.

Curiously, the establishment press didn't draw attention to Obama's blatant dereliction of duty over DOMA. The press did not assert that the Justice Department was in "rebellion" and the executive branch had a "duty" to execute "the law of the land" and "get over it."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/stop_saying_samesex_marriage_is_the_law_of_the_land.html#ixzz3lkI8HCZk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook; 9/14/15, 3:10 PM
hombre said...: Althouse: "It would violate the children's rights to tell them they don't belong in the school because they are black."

Jeez, Professor, you are losing it.

If by speaking the words, the school official somehow kept them from attending the school you might be right. But merely speaking the words without more? Ridiculous!; 9/14/15, 3:10 PM
trumpintroublenow said...: GShe changes the licensing process to one that results in the issuance of licenses that she says are invalid. How is that not contempt?; 9/14/15, 3:22 PM
hombre said...: I disagree with most of the Professor's gay marriage blather, but her position that Davis is "casting aspersions" on the marriages is certainly defensible.

For me, however, it's a big, "So what?"; 9/14/15, 3:22 PM
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
Jaq said...: I guess if the Supreme Court says that a mule is the same thing as a horse because "love wins" then mules will be able to reproduce! But they can't, because a mule does not equal a horse, and a sterile marriage is not equal to a marriage, either.

But Robert Cook insists that you *think* that it is. He says he doesn't care what people think, but still he tries to deny thoughts.; 9/14/15, 3:34 PM
Jaq said...: I actually voted for the "gay marriage" initiative in Florida, for my gay friend who was in a "committed" lesbian relationship at the time. Later they split, and my friend remains in possession of her home, so it worked out for the best.; 9/14/15, 3:36 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: " . . . cultures throughout history have seen marriages with multiple partners."
Cook is lying, of course. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the norm throughout all of human history. Polygamy has appeared in some cultures, but it is almost always the marriage of one high-status male to multiple females. Polyandry is virtually unknown in human history (folklore does not count as history).; 9/14/15, 4:00 PM
Jason said...: The purpose of an automobile is to get passengers or a driver from one place to another. Not every car can do that now, because some of them aren't running. But if the car could never transport people from one place to another, COULD never have transported people from one place to another, and never will conceivably transport people from one place to another because it cannotbe repaired, and never will be repaired because it would require an act of God to repair it, and such repair is beyond the capacity of any man, it's not an automobile.; 9/14/15, 4:03 PM
Rosalyn C. said...: Best comment from rhhardin about the absurdity of male obsession with female genitalia and the never ending display of women exposing themselves in media to gain personal and financial benefits. This is considered civilized behavior?

I came away from reading these comments with a couple of observations for those who argue against SSM, using the arguments of nature and tradition:

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.

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.

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.

What I am saying is that the tradition of marriage is not based on nature but is a made up human institution and has already undergone evolution and tremendous changes. 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.; 9/14/15, 4:15 PM
Jason said...: Oh, great. Another shitbirds who wants to libsplain why we should ignore religious liberty if it's pertaining to those icky Jesus freaks.

News flash: it's not your place to determine religious obligations for other people.; 9/14/15, 4:20 PM
n.n said...: It looks like institutional discrimination under "equal", or actually congruence, will be the rule of the land under a State-established pro-choice or selective doctrine. The usual human and civil rights interests are, as with the premeditated killing of wholly innocent human lives under the selective-child policy, absent from the field. I wonder what else lurks in the penumbra of the pro-choice occult.; 9/14/15, 4:43 PM
MadisonMan said...: I'm interested is seeing this discussed at some point

Didn't click, but the key word in the url: activists.

To quote someone upthread: "And like most activists, unpleasant"; 9/14/15, 5:10 PM
jr565 said...: "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"

Only men and women toghether CAN produce a child. That is reason why this particular bond is relevant to society. It wants the biological parents to have the framework that provides a mother and father for their kids. The mother and father assume that role because they are the mother and father.
As to why old peope can marry despite not being able to have kids. one, society is not determining individual fertility rates. Why would it do that. Two, there are age restrictions on things when you are too young, but how many are there when you are too old? Three, the law accepts the premise that even if you are sterile now, you could still through benefit of science, or change in scenario become a mother or father.; 9/14/15, 5:20 PM
jr565 said...: "What I am saying is that the tradition of marriage is not based on nature but is a made up human institution and has already undergone evolution and tremendous changes. 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." And we could add the percentage of people in polygamous relationships of families that are there to raise kids. Why are we not doing that? Evolution and tremendous changes, and all that.; 9/14/15, 5:22 PM
jr565 said...: "
Two is the most common number in a marriage in our culture and in our time, but cultures throughout history have seen marriages with multiple partners."
So, yeah, why not 3?; 9/14/15, 5:28 PM
jr565 said...: "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.; 9/14/15, 5:30 PM
Michael said...: "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."

This is straight out of the sophomoric-thinking playbook. By this logic our country is inhabited by #moronslivesmatter.; 9/14/15, 5:48 PM