Thursday, September 3, 2015

RWNJ Kentucky County Clerk Ordered Jailed For Contempt Of Court Over Refusal To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

Katherine Krueger and Tierney Sneed at TPM:
Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses, has been found in contempt of court and taken into federal custody.

According to AP, U.S. District Judge David Bunning said Thursday that Davis would be held in jail until she complied with the previous court orders to begin granting the marriage licenses.

And thus it must be in a society where the rule of law prevails over the rule of wo/man. If people start choosing which judges' orders they obey and which they do not, the required balance between freedom and order in society will quickly collapse in favor of wanton freedom, and the laws of the land will become utterly unenforceable.

Someone could do Kim Davis a favor by explaining the workings of civil disobedience to her: the person engaging in civil disobedience expects to go to jail for what s/he does; it cannot be otherwise, because s/he is violating the law. If Ms. Davis wants to decide in her own mind what the law means and act accordingly, but not be jailed for her lawbreaking, then she is asserting that she is some kind of queen, or at least a princess: not in America, baby, not in America.

Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had some interesting things to say in Krueger and Sneed's article (which you really should read before proceeding)...
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) also rushed to Davis' defense: "I think it’s absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberties," he said on CNN.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a statement calling for "every lover of liberty to stand for Kim Davis." “Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so," he said.
(Sigh! the RWNJs always require explanation of the simplest matters of rights and responsibilities.)

Sen. Paul, it's not for exercising her religious liberties that Davis is being jailed: those are liberties of belief and expression, not of action in contravention to the law, especially as in this case where the law couldn't possibly be clearer after the Supreme Court's refusal to support Ms. Davis's position.

And Sen. Cruz, I am at least as American as you are, and the nation I fight for is NOT "founded on Judeo-Christian values" because though I am religious, I am not a Christian, whether you like that fact or not. And I'm pretty sure you don't, you un-American bastard.

Just for good measure, Mike Huckabee chimed in:
... former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country."
No, ex-Gov. Huckabee, it "removes all doubts about the criminalization of" criminal behavior, and most of us don't have any problem with that. Sit down and STFU!


  1. This is not a complicated situation. This woman's religious convictions conflict with her public duties and I totally support her desire to take a principled stand -- she should resign.

  2. "I totally support her desire to take a principled stand -- she should resign." - pj

    pj, that is one of at least two principled actions available to her. The other is to acknowledge that her refusal to perform a well-defined mission of her office is a kind of civil disobedience, and like all practitioners of that venerable technique, she is prepared to accept the consequences of her illegal acts, whether jail time or impeachment and removal from office or both.

    Ms. Davis, however, insists on having it both ways: refusing her duty and dodging any consequences for doing so. If we are to maintain the rule of law in our society, our judiciary must be able to insist on and enforce the whole order: that she continue to be pinned on both of that dilemma's horns. An unenforceable judicial order is a preliminary to societal chaos.

    1. Indeed, one of the most disturbing aspects of her behavior here, and that of many other people in similar circumstances, is their insistence on an interpretation of the phrase "freedom of religion" which actually means just the opposite: "freedom of religion" translates as "freedom to impose one's religion on everyone else, even in defiance of the law." That wins no admiration from me, and I'd like to think that an adolescent ethics discussion group in the church I spent some time in (I was a UU) would not be allowed to get away with that perversion of meaning for 10 seconds... and it would be the other adolescents who would put a stop to it long before the adult leadership had to intervene. Ms. Davis has no basis for being proud of herself, and I hope someone of her own faith tells her so before she commits even worse logical perversions.



• Click here to view existing comments.
• Or enter your new rhyme or reason
in the new comment box here.
• Or click the first Reply link below an existing
comment or reply and type in the
new reply box provided.
• Scrolling manually up and down the page
is also OK.

Static Pages (About, Quotes, etc.)

No Police Like H•lmes