Unethical Quote of the Week: Kim Davis

“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people’s religious freedom and conscience. I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned – that conscience and religious freedom would be protected. That is all I am asking. I never sought to be in this position, and I would much rather not have been placed in this position. I have received death threats from people who do not know me. I harbor nothing against them. I was elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience.”

—-Kim Davis, Rowan County Kentucky Clerk  and hero of the addled, who has been making an ass out of herself while inconveniencing and insulting citizens of the State of Kentucky who only wish to get a marriage license, as is their right, in an official statement today released by her lawyers.

Stop in the name of arrogance and ignorance!

Stop in the name of arrogance and ignorance!

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend a temporary stay of a federal court order directing Davis to stop grandstanding, do her job and issue marriage licenses to a same-sex couples. One of the couples that Davis sought to deny the equal protection of law sued her, hence the order.   Davis’s lawyers, who have been giving her lousy advice, appealed  that order to the Court of Appeals, which stayed the lower court order until August 31. Now the stay of the order is no longer in effect, she’s out of even semi-rational options, and the courts are out of patience.

Davis, expressing certainty regarding her gross misinterpretation of law, religion, the Bible, and what it means to have a job, embraces a version of the Rule of Law that would lead directly to a theocracy. She is doing more damage to Christianity by her high profile idiocy than any gay couple possibly could.

She should be jailed. Her self-absolving blathering is nonsense, and wrong. She is defying her culture, nation, legal system and society, and needs to take a job she’s capable of doing without her warped conscience taking offense. She is not the state, you see. She cannot dictate state policy. She is required by her oath of office to follow the law. She is not marrying anybody, nor even violating the  “central teaching of Jesus” that few scholars seem to think he actually said.

This has gone on too long already, and Kentucky owes an apology to every couple that has had their life plans delayed by this arrogant, foolish woman.

She’s in contempt of court.

Jail her.

132 thoughts on “Unethical Quote of the Week: Kim Davis

  1. As strongly as I support freedom of religion, I have to agree. This woman is completely in the wrong. She was elected to carry out the functions of the law, not to use a secular position to make everyone else abide by the dictates of her religion. Sharia rule lies down that road.

    If gay marriage is a sin against God, then let God punish the sinners. How little faith does she really have, that she doesn’t trust God to know that this is their sin and not hers?

  2. Can’t she just be fired and replaced by someone else? If she can’t be fired because she’s an elected official, can’t a court suspend her and put someone else in pro tem? Needless to say, she should have simply resigned.

  3. The Kentucky legislature would have to impeach her to remove her.

    Not gonna happen.

    One or another Kentucky court would have to order her arrest.

    I doubt this will happen either. Judges are political animals.

    Liberty Council know exactly what they’re doing, and a Martyr, imprisoned for “Christian Belief” is just what they need to raise funds. What happens to the client is irrelevant except inasmuch as a means to keep the base motivated, and money coming in.

  4. Of course the ETHICAL thing would have been to resign. If she can’t perform her duties as ordered by the law, because of her own PERSONAL religious beliefs (muddled as they may be), she must resign. I agree with zoebrain. This has all been stage managed and designed to stir things up. Still, she can’t be permitted to hold the rights of citizens hostage. Martyr or not, she needs to be arrested. She is refusing to obey the law. If she doesn’t resign and insists on engaging in civil disobedience, she needs to take the consequences. And anyone, judge or police officer (of the law), who aids and abets her by refusing to do THEIR jobs is also in contempt (I would think). Sheesh, how do these people get these jobs?

    • These people get their jobs the same way the idiots in Congress and the White House get theirs–voted in by the masses. What was it Lincoln said about fooling people.

      BTW, if she is held in civil (as opposed to criminal) contempt, that would mean she would stay in jail so long as she refuses to follow the court order. If her lawyers are looking for a martyr, that’s the way they should go, although I think that raises some ethical issues about them. I’ve known a lot of “martyrs” over the years who want to be martyrs until it starts to hurt.

  5. Of course she should resign or be reassigned if she can’t fulfill her duties under the law. Just curious though…using that common sense criteria, shouldn’t govt. officials of sanctuary cities also resign if they are intentionally failing to uphold Federal law???

  6. Well, I agree with the tone of this message on the ethics of the clerk. So it must be a good message and correctly characterized. On the other hand, I don’t agree with the message about restoring the name to Mt Denali – so that must not really be a question of ethics but something else.

      • I know what I said, as a student I am interested in what kinds of questions are relevant to ethical issues and to the same extent what ethics, whose ethics, and the like. Consider it the same kind of question that might come up in the Q&A part of CLE.

        • Erm….

          Your 1st comment clearly states, and I summarize:

          1) You agree with this, therefore it is correct.
          2) You don’t agree with another conclusion, therefore it must not be related to ethics, but something else*

          *I assume the something else to be “personal tastes”.

          So you really aren’t looking for in depth analysis like you just asserted now…

          • I think you are right, we do tend to see things through our own lens. Where I used the words ‘something else’, you see ‘personal tastes’. Might be better to say something like the article on Kim Davis was more focused whereas the article on renaming McKinley to Denali was not as well focused and seemed to branch out as if trying to make multiple additional arguments based on more than just questions of ethics.

            • I’d submit that the Kim Davis article is “more focused” because there are fewer factors involved here and they are clear and concise, whereas with the Mt McKinley ethical evaluation there are a few more factors and they are less clear and more abstract…but I assure you, they are both ethics-related.

              • The McKinley article would be more effective I think if it were more limited to it’s central theme. As more factors are introduced there are more opportunities for a reader to disagree and discard the central theme. Rather than reinforcing they seem to weaken the message.

  7. This is so foreign to me, the idea of electing all these different officials: Judges, chiefs of police, and the people handing out marriage licenses at the county office? Really? Why? Why does America put itself in that position? What is gained by having an elected official in roles like that?

    • Because, arguably, the officials are then answerable to the people, rather than to the politicians who appointed/hired them. Of course, that presupposes that “the people” are paying attention, which is questionable in itself.

      • In Canada appointments are made for life, and so the Judges and Police chiefs might have biases that made them more appealing to the people appointing them, they are in no way answerable to them. Come to think of it, a lifetime election would have the same benefit in that the elected person wouldn’t be so worried about re-election. The problem at that point is how do you remove someone once they’ve shown themselves to be utterly incompetent? (We’re dealing with this issue in the Canadian senate, just replace incompetent with corrupt).

        Regardless though…. My comment wasn’t necessarily the benefit of appointment vs. election, it was election vs. employment. The bar America has set on the positions that require elections is remarkably low. It might not seem that way to an American, but for me as an outsider, having a clerk require an election is as ridiculous as requiring an election for your mailman or school bus drivers

    • Marriage really has nothing to do with the government on a fundamental level. Sorry government.

      The original intent of marriage licenses was to be able to assign legal responsibilities to spouses, and to the parents of children who would arise from said marriages. This assumed that the nuclear family/household was going to be the standard. It isn’t anymore, but the vestigial need for the government to officiate and legitimize your marriage remains, because bureaucracies are self-preserving.

      The right to legal marriage is now determined by whether or not any given two people can love one another. Which means that your government now officiates love. Might as well take your bestie to the Justice of the Peace and grab a Friendship License while you’re there. Makes as much sense.

  8. I must admit I want to see her continue to act this way. No, not because I agree with her, but because the press doesn’t agree with her. How is her behavior any different than Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton and her aides, the Justice Dept, etc? What do we do about officials who just refuse to obey the law? I want Kim Davis to continue to act this way for as long as Lois Lerner is held unaccountable for sending the tax returns of conservative citizens to the White House and the Justice Department for prosecution, for as long as she was held unaccountable for illegally denying conservative groups the ability to act so she could influence and election for her boss, for a as long as the Federal Election Committee employees were held unaccountable for working on Re-Elect Obama campaigns using on federal time and using federal resources, for as long as Hillary Clinton and the Justice Department refused to honor FOIA requests and lied to the court about the search results, for as long as the Hillary Clinton is allowed to remain unaccountable for using charity money to supplement the government pay of her advisors like Sydney Blumenthal ($120,000/year) and Huma Abedin.

    If liberals can act this way, why can’t conservatives? Why can’t all government officials act like this? I want every liberal apologist of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to look at what the wold would be like if everyone acted like they do. I want them to see that their corrupt ideology is what is threatening to destroy this great democratic experiment. If Kim Davis can do that, I am all for it.

    • It is unfortunate that there are not many more people in her region like her, and who together would refuse to cooperate on this issue en masse. Strike to shut down government offices or what have you. Because she is just one person, and likely does not have wide support, and also because the time for resistance has substantially passed, her effort smacks of vanity. It is a lost cause.
      ________________

      Jack wrote:
      “Davis, expressing certainty regarding her gross misinterpretation of law, religion, the Bible, and what it means to have a job, embraces a version of the Rule of Law that would lead directly to a theocracy. She is doing more damage to Christianity by her high profile idiocy than any gay couple possibly could.”
      _________________

      She is certainly misrepresenting the law. But she is not necessarily misrepresenting the Bible or ‘religion’ (IMO). It is true that vigilante action like this, by a zealous, religious person, indicates a theocratically-inclined mindset though. But I would suggest that such a mindset is part-and-parcel of the American psyche. A nation of fanatics in a sense.

      There is a long tradition of resisting the civil authority when ‘conscience’ is involved. Would not the civil disobedience of Thoreau be equally condemned by you, Jack? What civil disobedience would you support?

      I suppose I think that she should really have put her values on the line and have resigned and suffered the consequences. Then she could say she suffered for her beliefs.

      I do wish to say that the prevalence of homosexuality, and the mainstreaming of it, is disgusting and condemnable in my own view. I oppose ‘gay marriage’ one hundred percent. What a disgusting concept. I will do everything I know to do to oppose it, but what more could be done? The nation is turning queer and so be it. What can one do when it is 10,000 to one?

      • Thoreau was violating a law as a citizen. If he found writing and philosophy objectionable, his choice wold be to do something else—lifeguard at Walden Pond, maybe. He went to jail, as he should have, and expected to. She’s presuming to defy the law and her duties and still keep her job. Civil disobedience doesn’t work this way.

        Thoreau, I’m confident, would tell her to resign in protest.

        It makes no difference to the ethics here whether she is correct or not about her religion. It doesn’t allow her not to do her job. Religion doesn’t dictate to the government.

  9. While Ms. Davis is busy remembering what Jesus said, she should also remember that he said to “render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s” and I believe doing one’s duty as a government official would fall into this category. Anyone who cannot reconcile that should resign their office and seek employment where they can avoid such conflicts with their faith.

    • He also had a thing or two to say about judgement being the domain of God, and loving one another being our prime directive. My feelings on gay marriage are complicated, but this seems to be the wrong place and time for civil disobedience.

  10. nor even violating the “central teaching of Jesus” that few scholars seem to think he actually said.

    Throw away statements like this frustrate me to no end. Biblical interpretation is a complicated process, involving numerous texts written in different eras being internally referenced. Any “scholar” could interpret scripture to mean whatever he wants by selectively choosing passages. To throw out nameless “scholars” as authorities is grossly misleading.

    The most common interpretation among Christians is that Jesus did not address homosexuality, because there was nothing that needed correcting. The Gospels go to great lengths to criticize self-serving interpretations made by others, but never addressed any misinterpretation of the teachings against homosexuality. In the Sermon of the Mount, Jesus carefully deconstructs the harsh punishments found in the Old Testament, but never disavows the sinfulness of any acts condemned in the Old Testament.

    Jesus said that death to a disobedient son was not appropriate; does that mean that Jesus suddenly wanted sons to disobey their fathers? Jesus preached compassion and conversion. He communed with prostitutes and tax collectors, not to endorse their actions, but to call them to reform. He spoke harshly against hypocrisy by those in power.

    “What would Jesus do?” is a complicated question; overturning tables and cracking whips is always an option. Even if Jesus agreed with the clerk about the sacred nature of marriage between a man an women, it is possible that he would call her out for hypocrisy and grandstanding. The marriage certificate bears Caesar’s name; render unto Caesar, perhaps.

    Jesus’ views were complicated and nuanced; failing to recognize this nuance had led to much conflict throughout history. One lined throwaways only contribute to this conflict.

    • Which is why I didn’t cite her first part of the sentence, referring to the Old Testament. Saying scholars agree that Jesus didn’t teach that gay marriage was a sin means that scholars agree that this wasn’t a “central” part of his teachings. You’re right: he didn’t think he had to address it at all…few did, 2000 years ago. If he didn’t talk about it, he didn’t teach it, which means it wasn’t a central part of his teachings. If someone said that “lawyers represent clients” was a “central” part of my legal ethics seminars, that would be nonsense. There is no reason for me to teach that, I assume everyone knows and agrees with it, but I don’t teach it.

      She’s full of crap.

      • Oh yes, she is full of crap. The tiny, tiny bit of sympathy I have for her is that when she ran for office, this was not an issue; she really did not ask to be put in this position. She hadn’t run for an office, knowing that her deeply held, if tragically flawed, beliefs would not permit her to fulfill a central duty of the office. Still, she could have quietly announced her retirement and left office without the fanfare.

        • And we all face that in our careers. We either adjust, or we quit. New rules, new duties, new procedures.”You know, I wish I could take on that new responsibility with no raise, but my religion prohibits its. Sorry.” Yeah, that works. Try making the argument that you’re right to worship has been violated and you are facing discrimination.

          • I’m always trying to weasel out of menial household chores with the “it’s against my religion” defense. It never works. “I’m late to work because I’m having a spiritual crisis” never worked either.

    • His views were indeed complicated and nuanced, and while I’m not a Christian, I think it’s important for anyone to understand them considering the Bible is one of the foundations of the Western world. I think the “render unto Caesar” line is a lot more important than these wannabe theocrats want to admit, when you take it into context with his admonition to pray in private, and the way Christians acted when they WERE an oppressed minority (Not like now when they just claim to be).

    • This woman, and many people like here, represent on old system of general values that has been and is being turned under like dead leaves. ‘Christianity’ is an interpretation, meaning one enters into that whole concept-world and tries to make sense of it, and to decide one’s ethics. But that is true of all religious systems. The more I study them, the more I see what they all share in common: a defined bedrock.

      No want likes or admires that bedrock anymore. So be it.

      But it is important to note that early Christianity took a strong stand against ‘sexual immorality’ in a social world in decadence. ‘To take the Christian cure’, I read, had in large part to do with renouncing perverse sexual practices. The concept we have now of marriage is an evolution of that ‘work’ done by those early Christians. I don’t think ‘to live as a Christian’ is a small or easy attainment.

      Coming out of an intensely zealous Jewish religious background I note much of the same value-set. Highly orthodox Judaism is not so very different in these areas.

      I’ve had to renounce and remodel a great deal, but this is one area I don’t think I will be able to change. Nor do I want to. To have weak sexual values seems to me a core area for degeneracy.

      Now, the sexual rebels have the ground. Even the White House showed up (in drag?) in ‘pride’ colors.

      America: Queer Nation. How proud we should all be!

      • “I’ve had to renounce and remodel a great deal, but this is one area I don’t think I will be able to change. Nor do I want to. To have weak sexual values seems to me a core area for degeneracy.”
        I think that is admirable in many ways, and i agree that having weak sexual values is more than just sin. Trivializing sexuality comes at a psychological cost.

        • What does trivializing sexuality have to do with anything here? Who’s trivializing sexuality, though there is no reason in the world for anyone else’s sexuality to be anything but trivial to me.

          • My comment has nothing to do with this case. I was commenting on the part of her comment that i quoted. The way i took it, she was talking about her own personal choices.

            • I usually assume that comments have some nexus to the post. As I keep reminding everyone. whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong, Kim Davis is not allowed to stand in the way of legal marriage licenses, and should gain nothing but scorn for doing so.

      • This issue has nothing to do with gays, or religion. It is a story involving law, duty and jobs. She has an obligation as a member of society to obey the law. She has a duty as a government employee to assist citizens in receiving government services. If her religion opposes the policies her job requires her to follow, her two options are doing the job and gritting her teeth, or finding a job that doesn’t trouble her. She is, of course, off the clock, free to support different laws and policies.

        That’s it. It doesn’t matter what she thinks her religion forbids.

      • “This woman, and many people like here, represent on old system of general values that has been and is being turned under like dead leaves.”

        You are off the rails immediately here. Since when is refusing to do the job you were elected or hired to do an old value? It is anything but. It is a violation of contract, duty, respect, autonomy and fairness. Nobody is forcing her to give out marriage licenses—she ran for the job, now she refuses to do it.

        Ridiculous. She’s not a martyr, she’s an embarrassment to martyrs.

        • I think the assessment you made in the OP is accurate. She should do her job or quit. But to refuse to perform it … is a mistaken protest.

          Excuse the rest. I seem to always desire to expand conversations and to explore other dimensions.

          The part about “This woman, and many people like here, represent on old system of general values that has been and is being turned under like dead leaves” only means that strict religious life, as might have been practiced in a Kentucky-gone-by is on the way out. In that sense it is an old system of general values being turned under like dead leaves’. I did not mean to imply martyrdom. It is being turned under for many good reasons, but valuable things will be lost with that.

          • This woman, and many people like here, represent on old system of general values that has been and is being turned under like dead leaves..

            Yeah, right. Husband #4 probably agrees with you, though husband #3 who fathered her twins when she was still married to husband #2 might not.

            Funnily enough, now she’s “born again” she still sees nothing wrong in living in adultery with her current sex partner. God’s Rules only apply to other people, apparently.

            Thinking about it – yes, she does represent an “old system of general values”. Those of hypocrisy and pious malice, and gulling the gullible.

        • Are we still free to form our own opinions about sexual mores, choices, and origins? I’ll stand by anyone’s right to their lifestyle, if everyone else retains the right to their opinions of it. It seems like we’re edging closer and closer toward thoughtcrime.

          • Joe, of course people are free to form their own opinions. People are also free to ask questions about other people’s opinions, and to criticize other people’s opinions. That’s how free speech works. Your response is an overreaction.

            • You’re probably right. I think I may have inferred too much from the question. I admit Ive gotten a little sensitive about the free-thought aspect of free speech. It seems these days, more than ever before, there are opinions it is NOT okay to have, particularly when it comes to the whole GLBT (?) thing. It seems like almost overnight it’s gone from asking to be treated like everyone else, to protected class status in many ways, accompanied by what feels like a demand to see it as good and proper. I have a real problem with the demand part.

        • ____________________________
          Chris wrote:
          “How exactly does homosexuality show “weak sexual values?”
          ____________________________

          I wrote:

          “But it is important to note that early Christianity took a strong stand against ‘sexual immorality’ in a social world in decadence. ‘To take the Christian cure’, I read, had in large part to do with renouncing perverse sexual practices. The concept we have now of marriage is an evolution of that ‘work’ done by those early Christians. I don’t think ‘to live as a Christian’ is a small or easy attainment.

          “Coming out of an intensely zealous Jewish religious background I note much of the same value-set. Highly orthodox Judaism is not so very different in these areas.

          “I’ve had to renounce and remodel a great deal, but this is one area I don’t think I will be able to change. Nor do I want to. To have weak sexual values seems to me a core area for degeneracy.

          Now, the sexual rebels have the ground. Even the White House showed up (in drag?) in ‘pride’ colors.”
          __________________________

          Hello Chris, this likely won’t make you happy but here goes:

          I’ve looked into it to some degree and I think that there is such a thing as ‘sexual deviancy’. I know that I run up against a whole new definition, and that my statement is anything but politically correct. The SF gay scene (I grew up in the Bay Area) is a sexual perversion of the first order from top to bottom and no matter how it is looked at. (If the same things went on in a hetero community I would make the same statement). Homosexuality at that level is ‘weakness’ itself. And more. I don’t know how to define it. Weakness is not quite the right word. It is a perversion that stands out of the world, and against it. Against nature obviously.

          I myself have come to understand that there is a more or less natural homosexual disposition and it seems to have been ever-present in culture. I think this would be called the ‘closeted variety’. What can one ‘do’ about it? Not much.

          But what is happening now is different. When industry, entertainment, a generally decadent culture (which seems to have lost its moral center of gravity) inculcates and encourages outright sexual deviancy, I can’t help but see it as a serious problem. A culture that cannot recognize the natural superiority of a male-female union and seeks to place male-male female-female relationships on the same level, is a culture that cannot see right (IMO). The consequences will ensue, in time.

          It is very hard for me to talk openly about these things for my ‘frummy’ background, but I think too that – as a visual, as an ‘idea’, as a concept, and certainly as a practice – sodomy is sickness embodied. The life seed should not be dispersed in the rectal cavity. It is metaphysically evil. I am sorry but that is what I think.

          Who knows, maybe I will change? So much else has changed.

          • Oh no! Such an opinion is no longer allowed. Didnt you get the memo? Me saying this, by the way, has its origins in my strong feelings about the suppression of thought that’s occuring these days, and it’s not aimed at anyone. I’ve made similar (though not identical) observations. It does seem that deviancy is more prevalent in the homosexual community. There could obviously be many theories about why that is, from genetic to psychosocial. Not my area of expertise.

            • Joe, there have always been opinions in a society that have been considered taboo, and I’m not sure it’s any worse today than it ever was. If I got up at a town hall meeting in 1915 and said, “Men should be allowed to marry men,” I would probably be shunned by virtually all of my neighbors, and it would be very hard for me to find a group of people who agreed with me in my town. If I got up at a town hall meeting in 2015 and said “Men should not be allowed to marry men,” I might also be shunned by all my neighbors, but it might depend on where I lived, and I would likely be able to find a group of people who agreed with me in my town.

              I’m not sure the amount of suppression of speech has changed, just that the Things We Mustn’t Say have changed.

              • No, I think there’s a big difference. Today, there’s a group (“progressives”) that seems to want unacceptable speech, and unacceptable thought, punished by our government. It can be seen in things like the notions of hate-speech and hate-crime. If they had their way, thinking non-progressive thoughts would get you imprisoned, or worse. Hell, I’ve actually seen them write that in the comments sections of articles.

          • Is oral sex metaphysically evil? How about masturbation? How about a hetero married couple that engages in anal sex? What about condoms? After all, life seed wasn’t meant to be dispersed into a balloon and then thrown in the trash, was it?

            How about if one partner is infertile? Should they not engage in sex at all because the life seed is just going to be wasted?

            • Funny how one strong definition, or choice, then requires a whole group of other ones. But the other side of the questions you ask is What if all controls, or all sorts, are removed. It will quickly move toward strange extremes.

              If you are asking me to be the one that decides, that is an impossibility. How could I? I see these issues as cultural issues and issues of mores. Mores especially.

              As things move more starkly toward general decadence, all boundaries, all limits, are challenged. It will go one and on until – I suppose – people choose to create a different definition. I have come to see this as one aspect of ‘radical liberalism’. It is a slow process of redefining boundaries.

              I think homosexuality, generally speaking, should be tolerated within reasonable limits. It exists and it always has. I personally believe in the ‘closeted variety’ and that homosexuals should choose to remain content in a closeted existence. I kid you not. That IS what I think. I do not think that the ‘gay lifestyle’ should be made to seem as equal in value to a hetero and a ‘fruitful’ relationship. I would hope that gays themselves would choose not to see their relationships as equal. (Perhaps there are some who don’t?) It is a question of mores. If something needs to be done, it is to persuade people to see homosexuality (again) differently. It should be frowned upon. And there you have it, that is what I think.

              • I understand you think this way — you made that clear. But you seem to be focused on the act itself — even though married couples also engage in the same act (albeit not ALL married couples). So, you didn’t really answer my question. Everyone knows that you don’t get to decide, but using that as your answer is an easy defense and doesn’t force you to challenge your own views — or quite frankly, think about it all. That’s intellectual laziness.

                I don’t really understand this whole debate. I admit it. Is thinking about gay sex gross? Sure, for me it is because I am a heterosexual. But, I also think it is gross to think of other people’s sex lives — especially my neighbors and friends. Not only is it none of my business, but thinking about other people’s sexual habits is (and should be) disgusting. So why should we care what people do when it comes to sex as long as it is with consenting adults? No one has come up with a satisfactory response other than, “Ick.” Well, lots of things fall into the “Ick” category so you’ll have to do better if you are going to advocate for policies that affect people’s financial and emotional well being.

                • I made a comment about one particular act. Visually, conceptually, practically. But my issue with homosexuality has other roots. I do not feel this is the place to discuss that. I am working hard to define a ‘traditionalist’ platform. Meaning, I am seeking metaphysical bedrock. If I cannot find it, I will I suppose give up and just go along with the flow.

                  I did not answer your question, true, but I did (I thought) try to imply that it is a moral and ethical question – and I mean all of it, every detail. Take me. I have a strong ethical stance on this. Why? How did I come to have it? Education, background, tradition in some sense. But there is something deeper there too, I have found.

                  I propose then only: revisualisation of what is really being talked about, the essence. If you are asking me to offer a decision about what all married couples should do or not do, I will say that I think that everyone should put MUCH less emphasis on sex. And that is supported by my metaphysical propositions, which are mine and mine alone. The idea of ‘sacred sex’, if such a thing is ever really achieved, makes sense to me. But the debasement of sex really does seem a debasement of man. I want to define a position and a life-relationship that is rigorous, demanding, as against what all the rest of people are doing.

                  Trust me, it is not intellectual laziness that holds me back from speaking about this topic. In fact I am rather intellectually hyperactive. I live with my older sister (15 years older) who escaped our orthodox background by marrying out. Her husband is a strange sort of Christian philosopher writer and I think must be one of the most extraordinary people I have ever met. He has a library of 4-5000 volumes. I live with them – for the time being which has now been 5 years – and for the last few years have been able to do nothing much else but read. I am aware that I have come under his and their influence. My whole world has already been turned upside down and I have gotten used to spinning. I don’t believe anything anyone tells me anymore. Really. I think everyone is involved in layers and layers of lies and no one knows what the truth is anymore …

                  … even Jack! 😉
                  _____________________

                  Beth wrote:
                  “I don’t really understand this whole debate. I admit it. Is thinking about gay sex gross? Sure, for me it is because I am a heterosexual. But, I also think it is gross to think of other people’s sex lives — especially my neighbors and friends. Not only is it none of my business, but thinking about other people’s sexual habits is (and should be) disgusting. So why should we care what people do when it comes to sex as long as it is with consenting adults?”
                  _____________________

                  I can only offer my opinion. I think all things have to be thought through to their limits. I think we have a ‘duty’ to think about all the dimensions of our behavior. I think it is a common (but a false) idea that we should not be concerned for what others do.

                  If we do not or cannot take a stand in our world, I think we are failing at a fundamental ethical level.

                • It’s intellectual laziness to not simply accept what other consenting adults do? I find that, “it’s none of my business” when it comes to massive social paradigm shifts can seem just as lazy as “it’s tradition, and it’s traditional for a reason”. Can there be other reasons for her opinion, other than “ick”?

                    • Let’s say it’s just a gut feeling or sneaky suspicion. There are probably many such prejudices that shouldn’t be lightly discarded. I can think of at least a few times in my life I’ve had such feelings/suspicions, only to find their validity revealed by very unconventional means brought much later by happenstance.

          • “It is very hard for me to talk openly about these things for my ‘frummy’ background, but I think too that – as a visual, as an ‘idea’, as a concept, and certainly as a practice – sodomy is sickness embodied.”

            Lots of heterosexual couples practice sodomy, and lots of homosexual couples do not. You’re conflating all homosexual relationships with one particular sexual practice which both homosexuals and heterosexuals engage in.

  11. Am I missing something – I see no tension between her personal beliefs and her job duties. Her job is to issue marriage licenses for marriages recognized by the State. In issuing the licenses, she only has to ask one question: are these individuals entitled to a marriage license under the laws of the State? She is not asked to pass on the morality of gay marriage. She can think the State is wrong, she can refuse to attend gay weddings, she can go to a church that denounces gay marriage, all consistent with the performance of her job duties, that is, issuing licenses for acts approved by the State.

    There are a million analogies. She’s the Clerk of the Court. If she believes divorce is wrong (ironically she does not appear to, at least from what I’ve read), can she refuse to accept divorce filings? If you are a teetotaler working at a grocery store, can you refuse to ring up someone’s bottle of Southern Comfort? If you’re against guns, can you refuse to issue a concealed weapons permit to someone who complies with the laws of the State for receiving one?

    • Regarding your laat sentence, you can in the state of Connecticut. There are all sorts of things that regularly occur in hetero marriage that are considered sinful. Should she inquire about whether these things will happen or not? It seems that the basis for her objection is the presumption that there will be a certain type of sexual activity. An asexual union, however unlikely, is not outside the realm of possibility.

  12. Quick disclaimer-I am a Christian. However, it’s absolutely amazing to me how many Christians are so insistent that Jesus and the Bible must have a strictly literal interpretation about what other people are supposed to do, while having an extremely figurative interpretation about the things Jesus and the Bible tell us to do. Oddly enough, I’ve not seen one Christian walking around with a plucked out eye or a cut off hand.

    • No one cuts out an eye or hand because it’s an obvious use of hyperbole. If you were going to cut off a hand or an eye, you’d have to remove both to really have the desired effect (hence, obvious hyperbole.) The actual takeaway there is that one should make sacrifices to remove/resist temptation.

      It’s not really hard to distinguish the metaphoric/figurative from the literal. I think the better argument is that moral imperatives in the Bible are for Christians, not for those on the outside. If you are a Christian, I can entreat you to do X or to not do Y because Jesus said so. If you aren’t, then the fact that you are doing X or not doing Y isn’t really your biggest problem. That is why the apostles went out preaching about Jesus, and not preaching about the elimination of various sins from society.

  13. The Republican president of the Kentucky state Senate has asked a federal judge to withhold his ruling ordering a county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples against her religious beliefs.

    Republican Senate President Robert Stivers said in a court filing on Wednesday that U.S. District Judge David Bunning needs to give the state legislature time to pass a law that would exempt Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses.

    Stivers noted the state legislature is not in session and won’t be until January. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has declined to call a special session.

    Source : AP

  14. The ethical solution would be for Kentucky and every other self-respecting state to reject the Supreme Court ruling as illicit and unconstitutional from the onset… which it was.

    • You obviously still haven’t read this comment.

      How do I know? You:

      a) haven’t responded to it with any argument – let alone a fallacious one.
      b) haven’t changed your views.
      c) can’t respond to it because you know it is a rational *constitutional* argument.

      And that isn’t a false dichotomy…trichotomy?

      • Did I need a long comment to make the case? Two members of the Court failed to recuse themselves as they were ethically required to do, rendering the verdict not only invalid, but overturning it. Nor does the Constitution give the federal government any power to rule, dictate or legislate on such matters. It DOES, however, mention freedom of religion that the federal government cannot impinge. Only the states and the people can do that… and within the framework of the Bill of Rights and their own state constitutions.

        • “Did I need a long comment to make the case?”

          No, but it would be nice for some comment to actually address what I wrote, which you clearly still haven’t read or you wouldn’t have said something stupid like this:

          “…Nor does the Constitution give the federal government any power to rule, dictate or legislate on such matters.”

          Because, had you read my comment, you would see that indeed the Constitution DOES give the government that power.

          Another doozy of a truly stupid statement is this:

          “…It DOES, however, mention freedom of religion that the federal government cannot impinge. Only the states and the people can do that… and within the framework of the Bill of Rights and their own state constitutions.”

          Because, the same 14th Amendment that is applicable also compels the 1st Amendment to apply to the states even though it’s original wording begins with “Congress shall make no law….”

          Amusingly, your insistence that 2 of the liberal judges needed to recuse themselves somewhat undermines your belief that the Supreme Court can’t just “make law”* for the nation when in the end it would have just been a 4 to 3 vote “making law” for the nation you happen to agree with.

          *it doesn’t “make law”…it interprets law.

          • I’m “suggesting”, Tex, that even if the SCOTUS ruling was constitutional- and it wasn’t- it would have been rendered invalid or reversed by the failure to recuse by Kagan and Ginsberg. The 14th Amendment is not reasonably applicable. This is just another example of federal power being extended far beyond its intended scope by a massive judicial redefinition of the Constitution. That is how courts legislate from the bench.

            • So then, if your confusion lies in not understanding the Constitutional process and the judiciary’s role in interpreting law, especially in this case when the Supreme Law of the Land is in conflict with a state law, then we can work with that confusion.

              If you’ll give me some time I’ll prepare a brief overview of the legislative process and how the system resolves conflicts between 2 laws.

              • I understand that interpreting the law is not the same thing as redefining or cherry picking the Constitution in order to forward a personal agenda. This is what happens when the concept of “original intent” is disregarded, in collusion with corrupt executive and ineffective legislative branches.

                    • You know you sound like Charles Green right now…

                      “I swear to you this rain I’m standing in is NOT wet! You are so wrong about water being wet!”

                      Can you really pretend like the text of the 14th amendment is irrelevent to a 14th amendment discussion?

                      How do you take yourself seriously?

                    • No, Tex. I’m not Charlie Green and I’m not a liberal. You are the one evading the obvious issue. You cited “equal protection under law” under the 14th Amendment. I’M asking you just how this can reasonably be applied to marriage and it’s degradation by the Supreme Court to include deviant liaisons as its equivalent.

    • There’s a newer volokh post on this with an interesting note. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/

      I was initially of the opinion that she should step down if she is unwilling to do the job. I am now somewhat sympathetic to Kim, since her primary issue is with her personal name being affixed rather than with issuing the license itself. Allowing a variant form under Kentucky’s RFRA seems like a minor adjustment to make, at least at first glance.

      • I just do not see how she could issue a license without putting her name on it. She is the county’s witness that a couple met the legal requirements. Putting the deputy clerk’s name is a lie; putting only the county’s name is worthless; a marriage license verifies that there are two real people. A rubber stamp cannot do this.

        • I really don’t care about the nuances of whether she can find some technical support in the law.

          The Court’s rational is ethically and logically correct:

          As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5.

          The name argument sounds like an excuse to me. What does the clerk’s job entail other than being the state’s agent to certify the marriage? She’s trying to roadblock, delay and inconvenience gay marriages. You think all those people cheering her are cheering because she wants to certify them without her name, or that this is what she wants them to believe? I disagree with Volokh—the so-called accommodation isn’t reasonable.

          • If I was part of a gay couple in that county,and the “accommodation” consisted of letting Davis omit putting her name on my union’s license, and I had the time and resources to fight, I would assert that the county was in fact giving a separate and unequal second class marriage license, and that this was like slapping Jews with a yellow star, that it was a stigma and separate and unequal, and “reasonable” only to law professors who didn’t have their own marriages so insulted by the State. And if I had the money to fight it through, I’d win. Volokh is wrong.

            • With regards to this issue, the signing of marriage certificates, I do not disagree on most points. However, the court is incorrect when it states that “The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.”

              By requiring that bureaucrats sign the marriage certificates for homosexual couples, the state is in fact normalizing homosexual unions. This is a somewhat trivial observation, so let me expand.

              Davis finds this normalization itself to be repugnant. To Davis, and indeed many staunch Christians, homosexual marriage is grossly unjust, even for the couple attempting such a union. Homosexual marriage is seen to trap individuals into unhealthy and immoral behavior. This view is terribly misbegotten, but is likely earnestly held; I am not excusing it, just explaining it.

              The ordinary course when a bureaucrat is asked to do something wrong is to resign in protest. This should have been Davis’s choice of action. Corrupt governments and politicians cannot succeed in power if ordinary bureaucrats do not facilitate their transactions. Hillary, for instance, could not successfully maintain a private server, if subordinates did not indulge her by sending messages to her private email address.

              Lowest level employees might be stuck between providing for their families, or participating in low level corruption; the politician or appointee is responsible for these employee’s corruption. Higher level employees should resign, rather than enable. In extreme circumstances, such as Taliban Afghanistan, bureaucrats must weigh the danger of total government collapse with indirectly supporting a repugnant regime, or staying on to quietly undermine said regime.

              Davis earnestly thinks she is in such an extreme scenario; she is factually incorrect, and to be pitied.

              Now, this is America. We cannot indefinitely imprison people for their mere religious beliefs, no matter how repugnant. We are factually not the Taliban. With county deputy clerks willing and authorized to issue marriage licenses, Davis should be freed from jail on the contempt charges. She is still open to impeachment, which would perhaps be the best case scenario. The second best would be if she finished her term and disappeared into obscurity.

              If she ran for another term, she would be a malicious hack.

              • However, the court is incorrect when it states that “The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.”

                Not at all. The agent of the state is never required to personally agree with the state, any more than a lawyer has to believe in her client’s position in court. That’s what an agent is…she stands in the shoes of the state. Her own beliefs are irrelevant.

                Davis finds this normalization itself to be repugnant. To Davis, and indeed many staunch Christians, homosexual marriage is grossly unjust, even for the couple attempting such a union. Homosexual marriage is seen to trap individuals into unhealthy and immoral behavior. This view is terribly misbegotten, but is likely earnestly held; I am not excusing it, just explaining it.

                So what? No bureaucrat is required to or does agree with every policy he or she is bound to carry out. This is a central confusion this stupid woman and her defenders are inflicting on the public.

                The ordinary course when a bureaucrat is asked to do something wrong is to resign in protest.

                Wrong, yes. Except that when a law is passed or interpreted, citizens don’t get to decree that the rules are wrong. The State has been delgated the power, and you can’t opt out of the deal other than moving someplace else or civil disobedience.

                This should have been Davis’s choice of action.

                Or do her job, and stop pretending that she is the State. The State is HER. Big difference.

                Corrupt governments and politicians cannot succeed in power if ordinary bureaucrats do not facilitate their transactions.

                What???? NO government can succeed if individual bureaucrats think they have an individual veto!

                Hillary, for instance, could not successfully maintain a private server, if subordinates did not indulge her by sending messages to her private email address.

                Nonononono, you can’t suck me in with the Hillary bait. What she did was unethical and arguably illegal, definitely improper, and potentially harmful TO the government. All involved had duties to report her and block that action. Davis is the opposite of those bureaucrats. She is Hillary.

                If she ran for another term, she would be a malicious hack.
                She was a malicious hack the second she started using her position to grandstand her faith while denigrating gay couples.

                • Not at all. The agent of the state is never required to personally agree with the state, any more than a lawyer has to believe in her client’s position in court. That’s what an agent is…she stands in the shoes of the state. Her own beliefs are irrelevant.

                  I agree with you on this point, and am apparently not getting that across. Because she believes this she believes she cannot serve as a dispassionate agent of the state with regard to marriage licenses. Because she believed she could not have served as a dispassionate agent of the state, she should have resigned. (She could also reform her beliefs, but it is her it is her right to be an obtuse idiot.) I agree fully that her chosen course of action was unethical, even from her own perspective.

                  What???? NO government can succeed if individual bureaucrats think they have an individual veto!

                  Again, I agree on this point. Davis is grossly improperly using this “veto”, that should only be reserved for the most extreme cases, like the aforementioned Taliban. The United States is not the Taliban.

                  All involved [in the Hillary affair] had duties to report her and block that action. Davis is the opposite of those bureaucrats.
                  This was the original point I was trying to make in my muddled post.

                  She was a malicious hack the second she started using her position to grandstand her faith while denigrating gay couples.
                  I am invoking Hanlon in assuming she is a grossly incompetent hack, rather than strictly malicious hack. I do not vigorously dispute what type of hack she is.

                • However, the court is incorrect when it states that “The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.” Revisiting this point, the court is not so much incorrect, as not quite to addressing Davis’s concern about facilitating in any way being immoral (which it could then respond to with an invitation to certify anyways or to resign). Davis’s concern is of course muddled and subject to numerous revisions, and would have been impossible for the court to formally address such a moving target.

  15. Kim Davis is my hero. Taking a courageous stand, and not violating her conscience. Why should she have to quit, when getting elected to her job predates the Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to put their stamps of approval on perversion, sodomy, and what the Bible clearly states is an abomination? And why stop with gay marriage? Why should I, then, not be allowed to marry my grandmother, my mother, my sister, five women, ten women, or my pet dog, for that matter. Don’t be polyphobic, let me marry 15 women. And don’t be caninophobic, let me marry Fido. Furthermore, don’t be familiophobic, let me marry Granma. Why not, you gay marriage loving hypocrites? And please, you can’t invoke morality as a reason, since you’ve already dispensed with that.

    And to say she must violate her conscience and do her duty because it’s the law, is weak. She has to someday answer to a greater authority. The Eternal Supreme Court. After all, slavery and Jim Crow were once the law of the land. Would you have insisted then, that an African American civil servant be forced to uphold Jim Crow or slavery laws? Of course you wouldn’t have. Hypocrites!

    Since she won’t quit, and can’t be fired, then the only reasonable thing to do then is to have the governing bodies impeach her. And if that doesn’t work, then we have a constitutional crisis at hand. After all, we have fought wars over strongly held moral convictions. So let’s not pretend that this ongoing culture war within our society isn’t real. And since when does one give up one’s deeply held moral convictions, just because one is a government official? Especially, when such strong beliefs, and election to said post, predate the recent absurdity of legal homosexual “marriage”. Keep up the good fight, Kim, as my admiration for your courage and adherence to principle, regardless of the consequences, is right up there with the likes of Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Kim Davis, Democrat, my hero. God bless you. Signed, white male, Republican.

    • What the Bible says is irrelevant to the laws of the United States, you theocratic ignoramus.

      I’m hoping this is satire; if not, it’s among the most ignorant and stupid posts ever to appear here, and that’s saying something.

      You do a good job arraying all the really bad analogies, silly comparisons and legal nonsense: I’m sure Mike Huckabee, a fool, would be impressed. You can find my debunking of these cretinous arguments (a.k.a Davis arguments) elsewhere on the blog, as well as a million places on the internet. It is not worth my time debunking them yet again for someone cognitively and educationally disabled.

      She can be jailed, will be, and should be, if she lifts a figure to interfere with any couple’s right to be married.

      To answer your stupid question “Would you have insisted then, that an African American civil servant be forced to uphold Jim Crow or slavery laws?” Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional: NO. Slavery was the law of the land. YES.

      Call me a hypocrite again, jerk, and you’re gone. Last warning.

      I may ban you anyway on general principles. You are an embarrassment to the blog, the nation, the law, religion, Republicans, homo sapiens and the cosmos. Learn to think.

      • I guess it’s apparent that we’re never going to be reconciled on this issue, Jack. I respect your opinions, as always, though. But since we cannot find common ground and since this IS your website (which I respect, as well), it’s now appropriate for me to drop the matter here. Best wishes.

  16. The more I think about this, the more I think that conservatives are making a mistake taking a stand here. I think that the only way that we will prevail in selling our way of thinking is if we are consistent. I don’t think we can say on one hand that our process, as designed and intended, should have primacy in all matters, then claim “we answer to a higher power” when we want to circumvent that process. I think that this is what the left does all too often, and aping them is bad strategy.

    I’ve said it before that I’m not crazy about gay marriage, and the whole gay movement for that matter. It’s not based on personal animosity, but on it being part of what I see as a destructive seismic shift in the fabric of our culture. I don’t even think that gay people are aware that they are being used to this end, nor do I think they’d want to be. Still, the law has spoken, and I think conservatives particularly need to consider the rule of law a high-order good.

    What can be accomplished by fighting them on this? How can it be seen by them as anything but hatred, or as fear of being relegated to having a marriage on equal footing with gays? Legally, we now are. I don’t have to see MY marriage in any light but the one I want to see it in. I’m Catholic, and in our church, there is no such thing as gay marriage. If that changed, I would leave it, because to me, marriage is a spiritual matter, and the church is a spiritual domain. If sacred text is one day ignored, just for the sake of being “inclusive”, then that church is no longer a church, but a club. Love your neighbor, don’t judge, come and WORSHIP and share God’s grace with us fellow sinners, but we can’t do gay weddings. We’re not supposed to have abortions or eat meat on Fridays, either. Lots of rules for all of us.

    Personally, I don’t think the state should be in the marriage business at all. It only became involved for eugenics and disease prevention to begin with, before Sanger and Hitler made the idea less than savory.

    • I really wish editing was possible. Destructive seismic shift: all institutions and traditions torn down, belief in God and morality mocked and eventually extinguished, unstable family nucleus, kiosk divorce probably one day, materialism & narcissism (absentee parenting) drugs everywhere, dumbing-down, financial instability, moral, cultural, and ethical relativism, etc. Scared, insecure, obedient go-bots who will pull voting levers like monkeys hooked up to IV cocaine, getting a dose with every 20 presses of a button.

    • Good comment—I edited for you. Just ask (and hope I’m around.)

      Unfortunately, religion is in a bind. The less inclusive it is, the less likely it is to survive. The stat can’t extricate itself from marriage now, and if anti-gay marriage warriors would think straight, they would realize that eliminating civil marriage would do far more harm to the institution than same sex marriage. It would eliminate the number of marriages by half or more, with mores single parents, more scattered families…societal catastrophe.

      • I’d suggest, Jack, that we already HAD a societal catastrophe when civil authorities came up with no-fault divorce, thus skyrocketing the numbers of broken marriages, mainly by young couples who married in the heat of the moment without fully understanding the concept of a lifetime commitment. A traditional church marriage, uniting at least one member of the congregation in wedlock, is correctly preceded by consultations with the pastor or minister so that the obligations are made clear. Naturally, marriages still fall apart, thanks in main to the present day culture that preaches self and worldly pleasures over higher values. But its also true that church ordained marriages are more stable, particularly when the spouses are regular attendees. No, I think we can do well without civil marriage or government interference. If people choose to cohabit without a formal marriage, let them. If they can make it work, fine. But true marriage- as the presiding minister traditionally states- is a holy institution and should never be elsewise.

  17. The whole thing just makes me sigh. Because of privacy laws and insurance regulations (and probably other factors), civil marriage is required for any bonded couple so that they can enjoy the “legal” benefits, e.g., hospital visitation rights (over the exclusionary tactics of blood family members), inheritance, etc. There should be no religious involvement or sensibilities with regard to legal rights.

    An interesting factoid of the Catholic Church — maybe of other churches, too, but I don’t know — is that the theological understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony is that the “ministers” of the sacrament are the bride and groom themselves. The priest is merely the official religious witness that the two have bonded themselves to each other. Not necessarily relevant here, but thought I’d mention it.

    • Exactly so. People who really understand that, and so commit themselves fully to their marriage and to one another, tend to have enduring marriages and are able to provide a stable, healthy environment for their children. They see their marriage as their highest calling, which is appropriate, considering how difficult it can be traversing the inevitable growth phases that can’t be circumvented. This is why so many marriages fail. People “fall in love”, they feel that they’ve found the one that’s going to “make” them happy, it NEVER turns out that way, and they either discard the marriage, or remain in miserable gridlock, convinced that if the other person would simply change this or that, everything would be great.

      The ONLY way marriage will work is if it’s regarded as a sacrament, requiring self-sacrifice for the other, WITHOUT regard for what the other provides for them. This is the only investment that can elicit real love. This is the ONLY attitude that will see a marriage through these very distinct phases. Any other arrangement is just scorekeeping, a very pale facsimile of real love.

  18. NOTICE: Just banned “Proud Masculist” which I was pretty sure I would have to eventually. Now he hangs out in SPAM, with cheap jerseys china and boom beach hack apk android. He’ll fit in better there. I baited him for his nonsensical support for Kim Davis, I admit it. Is there any reason, on an ethics blog, why I should continue to entertain per se unethical, ignorant and illogical opinions at this level of muck? My rule is to give them their say, tell them exactly how bad it is, and give them a chance to learn, or shut up. There are some opinions—the Earth is flat, Bush bombed the Twin towers, God over-rules the Constitution, which are just pollution, and they aren’t welcome here. Others, like “drugs should be legal,” “the US should open its borders,” “Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame,” “torture should be used by the US”. and “Barack Obama is a great President,” are almost as repugnant to me, but they sustain something approaching a rational argument. I think the difference is clear.

    Here was PM’s last post—he never gave me his name either, so he was here on a temporary Visa:

    “Wow. You are so incredibly arrogant, that it is abundantly clear that this site is nothing more than a vehicle for your own overblown, self important, delusional, look-at-me, I’m somebody special, I’m a big, hot shot Washington, D.C. lawyer, impressed with myself, hiding my liberal views behind specious arguments, EGO. As far as intelligence is concerned, I have a genius level IQ, obviously higher than yours, since you can’t even construct a proper English sentence. ( the proper wording is ” Slavery WAS legal”, and not ” Slavery WERE legal”, as you so ignorantly wrote. DUH. You need to go back to elementary school and learn proper grammar, before you can lecture anyone about anything. So, clearly someone like you, who can’t even write proper English, whose BIG EGO far exceeds his logic, and has limited intelligence, cannot be taken seriously.

    As far as Jim Crow, unconstitutional, yes, but it was clearly de facto law in the post slavery SOUTH. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SO, wrong again, Mr. Arrogant Left Wing Know It All.In closing, since this blog is YOUR baby, I would consider it a great tribute, and testimony, to my superior intelligence, ( no ego or arrogance intended, just stating a fact ), my brilliant writing ability, my unassailable logic and reasoning, to be henceforth banned from your site. I would consider that a great honor, especially considering that your liberal bias, masquerading as impartial reasoning, is clearly evidenced. Free speech, anyone?”

    My Response: Thank you for the res ipsa loquitur response, confirming my assessment..You ARE banned, jerk, and not for the insults, which are more substantive than your arguments, but because I don’t let people make up facts, law and new principles of logic here because their brains have been melted by bias. Dishonest and ignorant opinions rate no respect, and if you want to make gullible, head-nodders dumber than they already are, use someone else’s blog.

    I haven’t heard that lame “big ego” argument since junior high when some dumb jock was out of ideas—good times, good times. And every reader here will instantly agree with your incisive analysis that I am a closet liberal Found out!

    I LOVE this comment! You declare yourself a genius (FREDO: “I’m smart!” Donald Trump: “I’m very intelligent!”), which nobody with two brain cells to rub together ever does because it makes them look pathetic; you resort to pointing out typos (“Slavery “were” resulted because I pasted from your compound sentence—I fixed it) as meaningful, since you can’t muster any real rebuttal. The free speech argument is another tell: you can spwe whatever crap you want to—someplace else. Funny, most geniuses I deal with understand the First Amendment a bit better than that.

    And you make a dramatic exit! This is like an Ultimate Jerk Ethics Alarms Championship!

    “De facto” law that consists of defying the law isn’t law. (Duh) The Civil Rights Laws put teeth in enforcement; it didn’t amend the Constitution, and it didn’t illegaliize what was already illegal: Brown had made that clear. .It is fun to see bigots like you citing resistance to bigotry as precedent for their wanting to decree separate laws for themselves. In fact, the Jim Crow laws are the equivalent of the laws the Kim Davises of the world (and you) would inflict on gay Americans, forcing a civil right law for gays. This is Huckabee’s idiotic “the law isn’t passed yet.” The issue is whether the natural state in the US is prejudice, or whether this really is America, where people are treated equally, and God doesn’t call the shots.

    I knew you would dash into banned territory after your first misogynist statement, and your provocative screen name. Kept you around for the spectacle, and you didn’t disappoint.

    Bye, Fredo. Try saying Hail Marys to catch those big fish, but watch your back.

    • Wonderful! This genius thought “Bye, Fredo. Try saying Hail Marys to catch those big fish, but watch your back” was a threat! Stipulated: if you can’t figure out an easy Godfather II reference, you are culturally illiterate. Genius’s are smart enough to know that if is life-incompetent to be culturally illiterate. Ergo my Fredo diagnosis was spot on with this guy, making his unfamiliarity with Fredo’s demise especially ironic.

      Wow! What a fun guy to ban!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.