to figure out that they are going down on the wrong side of history here?
Meh, whatever. There is no way of knowing that. I'm all for equal rights and same sex marriage- I'm also for folks standing up for what they believe in, regardless of how silly I may think their beliefs are.
If you want to challenge the supreme court's ruling, this is how you do it.
You can find folks standing up for what they believe even when it looks like they're fighting a losing battle throughout history- and sometimes although they might not get exactly what they want, they accomplish something close. Prohibition is a perfect example. Folks like to laugh about it nowadays and cite the repealing of prohibition as proof that it doesn't work. Well, it really did work to some extent. Folks nowadays don't and possibly can't quite understand how out of control alcohol consumption was prior to prohibition- it was more of a plague on society than obesity is now. Although eventually repealed prohibition was the main reason this country was able to pull itself out of its drunken stupor.
Not sure if that relates at all to this issue, but opposition needs to be heard no matter how silly of dumb you think it is. Giving up because you think you're on the losing side is a loser mentality.
It's 'apples and oranges' when people who replace the rule of law with their interpretation of justice (and good vibes). Anyone who disagrees is stupid, bigoted, homophobic, etc.
Your post actually proved Bill's point about it not being apples and oranges.
The clerk needs to issue the licenses; the sanctuary cities need to enforce immigration laws (or insert your favorite law). While the laws being not enforced are different, they are both laws and both are required to be enforced.
No reason that this one needed to be taken over with some awful false equivalency.
Geezus the liberal mantra - false equivalency, false equivalency, false equivalency. Like parrots. If you don't agree with comparison its a false equivalency. Doesn't matter whether its a valid point or not - you don't like it scream false equivalency, like that has any validity. Catch phrases and cliches.
The point was you cannot selectively chose to enforce a laws you don't like.
The irony of it all is that she cites God's authority
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
RE: The irony of it all is that she cites God's authority
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
This woman is a perfect example of deliberately and purposefully ignorant bigotry. Why anyone in their right mind would spend time coming up with excuses for her insistance on substituting her ignorance for the reasoned judgement of the courts is beyond me.
She is not a bigot, and she really does have a religious objection. Isn't the answer resigning her post because she cannot lawfully carry it out. In other words, it should not be people's civil rights that are violated for her religious objection. She doesn't have to grant the licenses if she resigns. I would have 1,000,000 times more respect if she would do that. But, at bottom, it has nothing to with religion and everything to do with bigotry.
She is not a bigot, and she really does have a religious objection. Isn't the answer resigning her post because she cannot lawfully carry it out. In other words, it should not be people's civil rights that are violated for her religious objection. She doesn't have to grant the licenses if she resigns. I would have 1,000,000 times more respect if she would do that. But, at bottom, it has nothing to with religion and everything to do with bigotry.
After reading a bit, this 100%.
I typed my first post (like an idiot) before understanding her position and exactly what was going on. Couldn't have been more wrong.
Wait-'except I don't really know if it has anything more or less to do
Behind religion. So, the religious objection could at the same time be bigoted. However, my point is that even if you had a bigoted view based on religion, once you take a public oath to uphold the law, you must uphold that oath or resign. And, I would believe it was religion if she resigned and hurt herself rather than hurt innocent people.
But if someone pays a fine on my behalf, is that a taxable event?
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Not sure I agree with this. Nor have i come across it in my practice as a CPA. The liability has come about in a grey area. When this eventually reaches the top court you will have your answer. Granted it's law they have to give the license by law but then you violate this persons constitutional right to exercise their freedom of religion. Can't they just have another clerk issue the license?
RE: Wait-'except I don't really know if it has anything more or less to do
with religion or bigotry, and I don't think that really even matters- who cares if it is a religious or bigoted belief?
This has nothing at all to do with religion. Nothing about the civil institution of marriage has anything at all to do with religion or anyone's right to worship or to live by any set of values that religion proposes. Only bigotry can explain the need to insist that your own deliberate ignorance should dictate the rights of everyone else.
Behind religion. So, the religious objection could at the same time be bigoted. However, my point is that even if you had a bigoted view based on religion, once you take a public oath to uphold the law, you must uphold that oath or resign. And, I would believe it was religion if she resigned and hurt herself rather than hurt innocent people.
You put it much more eloquently than I. That's what I was trying to (poorly) say when I typed that it didn't matter if the belief comes from bigotry or religion- either way, it's her belief regardless.
RE: RE: Wait-'except I don't really know if it has anything more or less to do
with religion or bigotry, and I don't think that really even matters- who cares if it is a religious or bigoted belief?
This has nothing at all to do with religion. Nothing about the civil institution of marriage has anything at all to do with religion or anyone's right to worship or to live by any set of values that religion proposes. Only bigotry can explain the need to insist that your own deliberate ignorance should dictate the rights of everyone else.
Oh, I agree with you.
Problem is, we aren't talking about what you and I believe- we're talking about what this woman claims to believe.
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
Since always. Judicial review is unconstitutional. There is no defined consequence for disobeying the Supreme Court opinion on any matter.
RE: RE: RE: The irony of it all is that she cites God's authority
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
Since always. Judicial review is unconstitutional. There is no defined consequence for disobeying the Supreme Court opinion on any matter.
Live and learn, but don't really understand so I guess I haven't learned yet.
The supreme court has the power to uphold or overturn existing law. As such don't their opinions have consequences. In the specific case of this county clerk, she could be sent to jail, no?
Here are some laws that aren't actively enforced in the great state of Alabama (for arguments sake):
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
But if someone pays a fine on my behalf, is that a taxable event?
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Not sure I agree with this. Nor have i come across it in my practice as a CPA. The liability has come about in a grey area. When this eventually reaches the top court you will have your answer. Granted it's law they have to give the license by law but then you violate this persons constitutional right to exercise their freedom of religion. Can't they just have another clerk issue the license?
I think we are talking across topics - I was inquiring if she would be liable for the taxes on any monies raised in some sort of online campaign, as other posters suggested.
And no one is violating her constitutional right - if a Muslim male were the clerk and refused entrance to any woman not wearing a burqa, how would that go over?
The idea of a god that is actually paying attention to us has been a cute one for a long time, but it's probably time for everyone to grow up already. At minimum at least stop trying to use mythology and superstition as an excuse to tell people what to do.
Dan Savage argued that she's in it for the money...
The idea of a god that is actually paying attention to us has been a cute one for a long time, but it's probably time for everyone to grow up already. At minimum at least stop trying to use mythology and superstition as an excuse to tell people what to do.
I'm pretty aligned with your view on religion as typed here.
The thing is, we live in a country of 350mil people- and the majority of them are believers. They have a voice and a say in the laws we make. You can't take that away.
That said- we also have a representative republic in place to ensure that the minority isn't denied rights because of the belief of the majority.
Point being- it goes both ways. You can't lecture people for trying to impose their biefs on other while you're simultaneously imposing your beliefs on them.
Here are some laws that aren't actively enforced in the great state of Alabama (for arguments sake):
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
M.O. then couldn't you make the case that this Kentucky lady is no different in this regard?
was when the clerk told the gay couples that she is willing "to pay for my consequences, just as you'll have to pay for yours"
when one couple responded, "What consequences - there are no consequences" she said "On Judgment Day".
That alone should be means for termination as she not only is not fulfilling her duties, she is telling others what their fate is going to be based on her religious interpretation.
I'd still like to know what religious freedom of her's has been infringed on.
The idea of a god that is actually paying attention to us has been a cute one for a long time, but it's probably time for everyone to grow up already. At minimum at least stop trying to use mythology and superstition as an excuse to tell people what to do.
I'm pretty aligned with your view on religion as typed here.
The thing is, we live in a country of 350mil people- and the majority of them are believers. They have a voice and a say in the laws we make. You can't take that away.
That said- we also have a representative republic in place to ensure that the minority isn't denied rights because of the belief of the majority.
Point being- it goes both ways. You can't lecture people for trying to impose their biefs on other while you're simultaneously imposing your beliefs on them.
I get that, but I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone. If someone doesn't believe in gay marriage or abortion or whatever, fine... Don't do those things. Just don't tell others that they can't.
Her job is, in part, to issue government documents.
This really is apples and oranges.
She, as a government representative, does not have the right to impose her religious beliefs onto other citizens while acting in accordance with her official capacity.
This is not about her choice to enforce a law, it's about her choice to not follow a law. It's up to another facet of government to decide whether or not to hold her accountable.
The main difference is, of all of the examples presented for comparison in this thread, not one of them involve the denial of civil rights by the government upon a citizen.
confuse the concept of religious freedom with the ability to tell other people what they should believe.
It actually should have the opposite effect, but it doesn't.
That's a side effect of religious organizations who promote prosthelytization. While most claim it is done in the name of spreading the "Good News" the real reason it is done is to expand the reach and coffers of the organization.
So much fraud is done in the name of religion. Organizationally, morally and mentally.
Here are some laws that aren't actively enforced in the great state of Alabama (for arguments sake):
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
M.O. then couldn't you make the case that this Kentucky lady is no different in this regard?
No. Because in this case, she alone has taken it upon herself to deny citizens what most everyone else can do based only on her warped interpretation of doctrine.
If that isn't a problem for you, then I'm afraid we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.
But to conflate this with national immigration policy is intellectually dishonest.
As county clerk I am responsible for providing many services to the people of Rowan county. These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records ... ~ Kim Davis Rowan County Clerk
No reason that this one needed to be taken over with some awful false equivalency.
And the point you are selectively ignoring is the President is doing no such thing. You can't strip him of authorities that have been legally used by all Presidents before him, and then, what, somehow magically expect the authority to come back when you get a president you like....
Geezus the liberal mantra - false equivalency, false equivalency, false equivalency. Like parrots. If you don't agree with comparison its a false equivalency. Doesn't matter whether its a valid point or not - you don't like it scream false equivalency, like that has any validity. Catch phrases and cliches.
The point was you cannot selectively chose to enforce a laws you don't like.
Not that I'm inclined to stand up for the woman, but she appears to be a relatively recent convert. Hence her past misdeeds aren't necessarily useful in judging her Christianity.
that a woman who has been married four times, and became pregnant by her third husband while still married to her first husband would stand on religious reasons as to why she can defy the Supreme Court, neglect her sworn-on-a-Bible duty, and deny marriage licenses.
I think their axiom is "I did all the shit I wanted and now am forgiven, so my goal in life is to tell everyone else in the world how to act. And I'm going to be as sanctimonious as possible in doing it!"
that a woman who has been married four times, and became pregnant by her third husband while still married to her first husband would stand on religious reasons as to why she can defy the Supreme Court, neglect her sworn-on-a-Bible duty, and deny marriage licenses.
Kim Davis, 49, who has defied the U.S. Supreme Court and continues to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex-couples, was married and divorced three times in 1994, 2006 and 2008, according to U.S. News & World Report.
She gave birth to twins five months after she divorced her first husband. The father of those twins was her third husband, according to the records.
Her second husband adopted the twins, the news magazine said.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis was tearful while testifying of her religious faith at contempt hearing but stoic as marshal led her to jail.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge said fine for Kim Davis would not work b/c others apparently raising money to pay fines for her. ^
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge orders Clerk Kim Davis to jail until she complies with marriage license order. Led from courtroom by marshals.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
BREAKING: Judge sends Rowan Clerk #KimDavis to jail until she agrees to comply with his order to issue marriage licenses.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis is in custody until she signs marriage licenses. Crowd outside erupts in applause
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis' deputy clerks get half-hour to decide if they will obey court order or possibly join boss in jail. Meeting w/ lawyers.
Meh, whatever. There is no way of knowing that. I'm all for equal rights and same sex marriage- I'm also for folks standing up for what they believe in, regardless of how silly I may think their beliefs are.
If you want to challenge the supreme court's ruling, this is how you do it.
You can find folks standing up for what they believe even when it looks like they're fighting a losing battle throughout history- and sometimes although they might not get exactly what they want, they accomplish something close. Prohibition is a perfect example. Folks like to laugh about it nowadays and cite the repealing of prohibition as proof that it doesn't work. Well, it really did work to some extent. Folks nowadays don't and possibly can't quite understand how out of control alcohol consumption was prior to prohibition- it was more of a plague on society than obesity is now. Although eventually repealed prohibition was the main reason this country was able to pull itself out of its drunken stupor.
Not sure if that relates at all to this issue, but opposition needs to be heard no matter how silly of dumb you think it is. Giving up because you think you're on the losing side is a loser mentality.
Your post actually proved Bill's point about it not being apples and oranges.
The clerk needs to issue the licenses; the sanctuary cities need to enforce immigration laws (or insert your favorite law). While the laws being not enforced are different, they are both laws and both are required to be enforced.
Geezus the liberal mantra - false equivalency, false equivalency, false equivalency. Like parrots. If you don't agree with comparison its a false equivalency. Doesn't matter whether its a valid point or not - you don't like it scream false equivalency, like that has any validity. Catch phrases and cliches.
The point was you cannot selectively chose to enforce a laws you don't like.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
After reading a bit, this 100%.
I typed my first post (like an idiot) before understanding her position and exactly what was going on. Couldn't have been more wrong.
Quote:
But if someone pays a fine on my behalf, is that a taxable event?
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Not sure I agree with this. Nor have i come across it in my practice as a CPA. The liability has come about in a grey area. When this eventually reaches the top court you will have your answer. Granted it's law they have to give the license by law but then you violate this persons constitutional right to exercise their freedom of religion. Can't they just have another clerk issue the license?
This has nothing at all to do with religion. Nothing about the civil institution of marriage has anything at all to do with religion or anyone's right to worship or to live by any set of values that religion proposes. Only bigotry can explain the need to insist that your own deliberate ignorance should dictate the rights of everyone else.
You put it much more eloquently than I. That's what I was trying to (poorly) say when I typed that it didn't matter if the belief comes from bigotry or religion- either way, it's her belief regardless.
Quote:
with religion or bigotry, and I don't think that really even matters- who cares if it is a religious or bigoted belief?
This has nothing at all to do with religion. Nothing about the civil institution of marriage has anything at all to do with religion or anyone's right to worship or to live by any set of values that religion proposes. Only bigotry can explain the need to insist that your own deliberate ignorance should dictate the rights of everyone else.
Oh, I agree with you.
Problem is, we aren't talking about what you and I believe- we're talking about what this woman claims to believe.
She's in charge and won't let them because her name will still be on the license even if she doesn't sign it and she'll have none of it.
Quote:
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
Since always. Judicial review is unconstitutional. There is no defined consequence for disobeying the Supreme Court opinion on any matter.
Quote:
In comment 12448112 Mason said:
Quote:
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
Since always. Judicial review is unconstitutional. There is no defined consequence for disobeying the Supreme Court opinion on any matter.
Live and learn, but don't really understand so I guess I haven't learned yet.
The supreme court has the power to uphold or overturn existing law. As such don't their opinions have consequences. In the specific case of this county clerk, she could be sent to jail, no?
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
Quote:
In comment 12447308 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
But if someone pays a fine on my behalf, is that a taxable event?
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Not sure I agree with this. Nor have i come across it in my practice as a CPA. The liability has come about in a grey area. When this eventually reaches the top court you will have your answer. Granted it's law they have to give the license by law but then you violate this persons constitutional right to exercise their freedom of religion. Can't they just have another clerk issue the license?
I think we are talking across topics - I was inquiring if she would be liable for the taxes on any monies raised in some sort of online campaign, as other posters suggested.
And no one is violating her constitutional right - if a Muslim male were the clerk and refused entrance to any woman not wearing a burqa, how would that go over?
I'm pretty aligned with your view on religion as typed here.
The thing is, we live in a country of 350mil people- and the majority of them are believers. They have a voice and a say in the laws we make. You can't take that away.
That said- we also have a representative republic in place to ensure that the minority isn't denied rights because of the belief of the majority.
Point being- it goes both ways. You can't lecture people for trying to impose their biefs on other while you're simultaneously imposing your beliefs on them.
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
Link - ( New Window )
when one couple responded, "What consequences - there are no consequences" she said "On Judgment Day".
That alone should be means for termination as she not only is not fulfilling her duties, she is telling others what their fate is going to be based on her religious interpretation.
I'd still like to know what religious freedom of her's has been infringed on.
Quote:
The idea of a god that is actually paying attention to us has been a cute one for a long time, but it's probably time for everyone to grow up already. At minimum at least stop trying to use mythology and superstition as an excuse to tell people what to do.
I'm pretty aligned with your view on religion as typed here.
The thing is, we live in a country of 350mil people- and the majority of them are believers. They have a voice and a say in the laws we make. You can't take that away.
That said- we also have a representative republic in place to ensure that the minority isn't denied rights because of the belief of the majority.
Point being- it goes both ways. You can't lecture people for trying to impose their biefs on other while you're simultaneously imposing your beliefs on them.
I get that, but I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone. If someone doesn't believe in gay marriage or abortion or whatever, fine... Don't do those things. Just don't tell others that they can't.
Her job is, in part, to issue government documents.
This really is apples and oranges.
She, as a government representative, does not have the right to impose her religious beliefs onto other citizens while acting in accordance with her official capacity.
This is not about her choice to enforce a law, it's about her choice to not follow a law. It's up to another facet of government to decide whether or not to hold her accountable.
The main difference is, of all of the examples presented for comparison in this thread, not one of them involve the denial of civil rights by the government upon a citizen.
It actually should have the opposite effect, but it doesn't.
That's a side effect of religious organizations who promote prosthelytization. While most claim it is done in the name of spreading the "Good News" the real reason it is done is to expand the reach and coffers of the organization.
So much fraud is done in the name of religion. Organizationally, morally and mentally.
Quote:
Here are some laws that aren't actively enforced in the great state of Alabama (for arguments sake):
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
M.O. then couldn't you make the case that this Kentucky lady is no different in this regard?
No. Because in this case, she alone has taken it upon herself to deny citizens what most everyone else can do based only on her warped interpretation of doctrine.
If that isn't a problem for you, then I'm afraid we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.
But to conflate this with national immigration policy is intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
No reason that this one needed to be taken over with some awful false equivalency.
And the point you are selectively ignoring is the President is doing no such thing. You can't strip him of authorities that have been legally used by all Presidents before him, and then, what, somehow magically expect the authority to come back when you get a president you like....
Geezus the liberal mantra - false equivalency, false equivalency, false equivalency. Like parrots. If you don't agree with comparison its a false equivalency. Doesn't matter whether its a valid point or not - you don't like it scream false equivalency, like that has any validity. Catch phrases and cliches.
The point was you cannot selectively chose to enforce a laws you don't like.
she is okay with adultery Link - ( New Window )
Not that I'm inclined to stand up for the woman, but she appears to be a relatively recent convert. Hence her past misdeeds aren't necessarily useful in judging her Christianity.
I think their axiom is "I did all the shit I wanted and now am forgiven, so my goal in life is to tell everyone else in the world how to act. And I'm going to be as sanctimonious as possible in doing it!"
Exactly
She gave birth to twins five months after she divorced her first husband. The father of those twins was her third husband, according to the records.
Her second husband adopted the twins, the news magazine said.
It's like Jerry Springer.
Kim Davis was tearful while testifying of her religious faith at contempt hearing but stoic as marshal led her to jail.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge said fine for Kim Davis would not work b/c others apparently raising money to pay fines for her. ^
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge orders Clerk Kim Davis to jail until she complies with marriage license order. Led from courtroom by marshals.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
BREAKING: Judge sends Rowan Clerk #KimDavis to jail until she agrees to comply with his order to issue marriage licenses.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis is in custody until she signs marriage licenses. Crowd outside erupts in applause
Judge Bunning told Kim Davis he has his own religious beliefs as Catholic, but public officials must respect the law.
And I'm glad that the judge saw that fining her would be pointless.
Kim Davis' deputy clerks get half-hour to decide if they will obey court order or possibly join boss in jail. Meeting w/ lawyers.
He's a clown.