Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open thread


Rowan County clerk Kim Davis has said she won’t return to work until Friday or Monday. Deputy clerks have said they will continue to issue marriage licenses in her absence, and at least one has stated that he would issue them even if Davis ordered him not to, since there’s a federal injunction in place.

This is an open thread.


  • 1. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  September 9, 2015 at 11:36 am

    I am so SICK of hearing about these pseudo-Christian hypocrites. According to the Christian holy book, Christians are expected (commanded) to treat their neighbors the way that they themselves want to be treated.

    Every major world religion and many secular philosophies include some form of The Golden Rule in their teachings. Jesus called this principle the Second Greatest Commandment.

    There is no excuse for this behavior except willful disobedience to this principle, abject self-deception, or brain-dead stupidity. . . or greed.

  • 2. StraightDave  |  September 9, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    e) All of the above.

    Davis and her breed are among the worst to walk the face of the earth…. all the more so because of the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy rolled into the mix. Sane Republicans, like John Kasich recently, are starting to call them out for ruining the image and credibility of Christianity. He may still be an exception, but it shows that the religio-nuts have really begun to overplay their hand. And once they lose that veneer of automatic respectability, like in Ireland, they will never get it back.

  • 3. waxr  |  September 9, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    The one deputy clerk who said that he would not issue licenses appears to be Kim Davis' own son Nathan.

    I wonder how he got that job, and how much is he paid.

  • 4. sfbob  |  September 9, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    I'm sure he got his job the same way Mommy Dearest got her previous job (which now is HIS job): Mom hired him.

  • 5. LK2013  |  September 9, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    Survivor is suing Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee for $1.2 million for (mis)using Eye of the Tiger.

    Since Huckabee admitted today that he and his people blocked Ted Cruz from the stage yesterday because it was "his event" and he had organized everything about the rally, the stage, the permits, etc., it sounds like he has already acknowledged that the whole shebang is his responsibility. So I hope he's ready to pay up.

  • 6. stevew999  |  September 9, 2015 at 9:28 pm

    Fake news. is NOT

    Although, I wish they would sue them 🙂

  • 7. LK2013  |  September 10, 2015 at 4:50 am

    Ahhh … didn't catch that … rats! I wish they would sue them too, and maybe they will!

  • 8. VIRick  |  September 9, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Today, 9 September 2015, in "Grimm v. Gloucester County Public School Board" (the right of a transgender student to use the appropriate bathroom), the ACLU has filed formal notice of appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals of the order of 4 September 2015 denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

    Read more here:

  • 9. VIRick  |  September 9, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    Texas: AG Paxton Still Trying to Cut Lesbian Widow from Wife’s Estate

    Like Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton is proving that not even the threat of contempt will stop him from trying to undermine the US Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

    Last month, in "Deleon v. Abbott," Paxton was ordered to appear in federal court and explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt after the state failed to issue an accurate death certificate to a gay widower for six weeks after the ruling. Paxton responded by pledging to comply with the ruling, and convinced District Court Judge Orlando Garcia to cancel the contempt hearing. Then, he turned around and filed a motion saying the high court’s decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges" shouldn’t apply retroactively in an Austin state court estate case, "In Re Powell."

    On 25 August 2015, Paxton’s office filed a motion in Travis County’s probate court aimed at blocking an Austin woman from inheriting a portion of her deceased partner’s estate, arguing that because same-sex marriage was illegal in Texas throughout the women’s relationship, Sonemaly Phrasavath has no legal right to her partner’s funds. Brian Thompson, Phrasavath’s attorney, stated that the AG’s office’s continued filings in the case show that it is “not recognizing the full force of the 'Obergefell' decision.”

    Although they weren’t legally married, Phrasavath is seeking to have her eight-year relationship with Connie Powell recognized as a common-law marriage, and it otherwise appears to meet the criteria. Powell’s siblings are trying to exclude Phrasavath from her estate, which Thompson said totals roughly $700,000.

    Paxton intervened in the case to defend the state’s marriage ban after the probate judge struck it down as unconstitutional in February 2015. But now that the Supreme Court has settled the marriage issue, it’s unclear why Paxton remains involved. In its motion for summary judgment in the Phrasavath case, the AG’s office argues that the women’s relationship wasn’t a common-law marriage because Texas’ same-sex marriage ban was “in full force and effect” during their relationship.

    But Thompson said the "Obergefell" ruling should apply retroactively, noting that plaintiff Jim Obergefell sought to be listed on his husband’s death certificate. And in the federal case in San Antonio, "Deleon v. Abbott," Texas officials agreed to amend birth and death certificates for same-sex couples who were legally married in other states prior to the ruling. “This is not, for her, about the money,” Thompson said of his client. “This is about respect and dignity, the kinds of words Justice Kennedy used in his opinion in 'Obergefell,' and all Paxton’s office is trying to do is deny Sonemaly the dignity of being recognized as Stella’s spouse.”

  • 10. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 9, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    I think someone needs to study a current DC case, described at:

    By studying the case, someone might get a idea or two, or information on how to proceed.

  • 11. VIRick  |  September 9, 2015 at 10:53 pm

    Mike, thanks for the reference. The particulars in both cases are identical, but with two distinctions which actually make the Texas case stronger.

    In the DC case, the same-sex couple could have gotten married, had they chosen to do so. Because of the continuing ban against same-sex marriage in Texas, the Texas couple could not (at least not in Texas).

    Furthermore, and as a direct result, in February 2015, the probate judge in the Texas case has already used this specific case (at the state level) to strike down Texas' ban on same-sex marriage.

  • 12. Fortguy  |  September 9, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    Here's the link to the original article Joe Jervis cited as his source:

    John Wright, Texas Observer: After Promise to Obey Federal Law, Paxton Continues Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage

    Also, for more background on Paxton and his supporters, be sure to read this:

    Christopher Hooks, Texas Observer: That Sinking Feeling

  • 13. VIRick  |  September 9, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    Thanks, Fortguy. This article further points out another important factor regarding Texas which bears close watching. I had only remembered the point in the abstract; namely, that Texas has more pending marriage cases involving same-sex couples than either Alabama or Florida:

    "Phrasavath’s lawsuit was one of at least 10 pending challenges to Texas’ same-sex marriage bans at the time of the "Obergefell" decision."

  • 14. Sagesse  |  September 9, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    Very well put.

    Gavin Newsom Answers Mike Huckabee: Don't Compare Me To Kim Davis [NCRM]

  • 15. Zack12  |  September 9, 2015 at 11:06 pm

    Indeed, when Newsom was given a court order to stop issuing licenses, he did.
    Unlike Kim Davis who was given a direct order and refused to obey it.

  • 16. Sagesse  |  September 9, 2015 at 5:14 pm

    More coverage of yesterday's rally.

    Fox News Anchor: Kim Davis Supporters Are 'Haters' Who Claim They Want Religion Out Of Government [NCRM]

  • 17. davepCA  |  September 10, 2015 at 9:39 am


  • 18. weshlovrcm  |  September 9, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    In order to be a Christian, one has to follow Jesus' commandments. According to anti-gay "Christian" Davis, her adultery is in the past. But wait. Isn't she still, according to the Bible she claims to follow, living openly as an adulteress? "But I say to you, “Whoever divorces his wife apart from adultery and will take another, commits adultery, and whoever will take her who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) Maybe it's time for her to come clean about why she divorced….3 times.

  • 19. tx64jm  |  September 10, 2015 at 7:30 am

    No she is not …

    When she became reconciled to Christ, her name was entered in the Book of Life and her sins were put from her as far as the east is from the west.

    As far as "coming clean", she already did that thru her reconciliation to Christ. No need for her to account to us lowly earthlings.

  • 20. Zack12  |  September 10, 2015 at 8:00 am

    That's nice, still doesn't give her the right to decide who can and can't get licenses due to her religious beliefs.

  • 21. hoodatsayhoodat  |  September 10, 2015 at 8:12 am

    This fetid bloated demon and others of similar religious persuasion are perfectly free to embrace whatever flavor of medieval superstitious nonsense secured under the skirts of overly protected religious freedom that validates their own personal biases, agendas and bigotry. They can hold those beliefs in their ample bosoms or vacuous craniums until the goddam cows come home; nobody has, to my knowledge, claimed otherwise.

    What they do NOT get to do, however, is use those beliefs to leverage the law as to mitigate the rights of others who don't share their deistic delusions. If that's what they want, they should emigrate to Iran or one of those other bassackward cesspools of theocratic insanity.

    Meanwhile, thousands of clerks are quietly and professionally performing their sworn duties
    all over the nation…only this one, goaded on by an ambulance chasing shyster, gets attentionfrom the media.

  • 22. Eric  |  September 10, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    She re sins every time she has sex with her "husband." If she was repentant, she would remain celibate, like the Shakers do.

  • 23. tx64jm  |  September 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    While that may your opinion, it is not what the Bible says.

  • 24. Rick55845  |  September 10, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    The bible is a work of fiction, so who cares?

  • 25. 1grod  |  September 10, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Eric, Tx and Rick. It is not productive to enjoin our discussion from a religious perspective. The equality that has been achieved though Obergefell is a secular/ civil achievement. When contributors venture into the religious sphere, statement such as your – Rick, appear and for some including me, it is perceived as disrespectful. The strength of this sight from day one, and I've been a contributor since then, is that we have avoided judgemental comments about religion, or their instruments/tools. I know from time to time I have ignored this understanding, being hardest on leaders of my own religious persuasion. Just saying! G

  • 26. Rick55845  |  September 10, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    Graeme, I hear you, but it is undeniable that the secular / civil achievement of Obergefell, whereof you spoke, is being opposed by religious nut jobs and evangelikooks (props to Tony Minas Tirith for that term) on religious grounds. The religious arguments, justifications, and motivations for denying us our rights cannot be overlooked or ignored when they comprise the principal rationale for the denial.

    I respect the RIGHT of people to believe as they wish, no matter how fanciful their beliefs may be. But the person who wields his beliefs against me like a weapon, to deny me my rights, isn't worthy of my respect. And so I don't.

  • 27. RnL2008  |  September 10, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Again, the bible is IRRELEVANT to the Constitution and laws of this Country and though you are entitled to believe in it, you nor ANYONE else is entitled to BASH others with that mythical book!!!

  • 28. tx64jm  |  September 10, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    Public Law 97-280:

    "Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation of people.

    Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of The United States …

    Whereas that renewing our knowledge of, and faith in God through Holy Scriptures can strengthen us as a nation and a people.

    Now therefore be it resolved … that the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures."

    "The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."

    "Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, in recognition of the contributions and influence of the Bible on our Republic and our people, do hereby proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible in the United States. I encourage all citizens, each in his or her own way, to reexamine and rediscover its priceless and timeless message."

  • 29. Bruno71  |  September 10, 2015 at 7:21 pm

    WHEREAS you religious nuts are full of poppycock and need to back off our Constitution.

    WHEREAS Pronto.

  • 30. RnL2008  |  September 10, 2015 at 8:38 pm

    The bible NEVER helped our Founding Fathers, in fact they all had very stout opinions about a mythical creature.

    There is NO mention of God or the bible in our Constitution and there is mention of a "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT legal document!!!

    You can claim what you want all ya want, but the fact is that we have NO established National Religion, nor do we govern by the bible and our Founding Fathers were Deists, who were NOT Christians and even Thomas Jefferson carried what was known as the "Jefferson" Bible and he tore EVERYTHING out of the bible EXCEPT what he thought was important.

  • 31. tx64jm  |  September 11, 2015 at 4:55 am

    John Adams:

    "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

    "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."

    "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!"

    "I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world."

    Benjamin Franklin:

    "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see."

    John Jay:

    "The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts."

    Thomas Jefferson:

    "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

    George Mason:

    "I give and bequeath my soul to Almighty God that gave it me, hoping that through the meritorious death and passion of our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ to receive absolution and remission for all my sins."

    Yeah, they sure had some stout opinions about a mythical creature!

  • 32. Zack12  |  September 11, 2015 at 7:55 am

    How nice, the fact remains this country isn't a theocracy and Kim Davis has no right to use her government position to impose a religious test on others.
    And those facts won't change no matter how quotes you post.

  • 33. Eric  |  September 11, 2015 at 9:12 am

    If America was founded upon Christian values, then slavery, Native American genocide, and denying women suffrage are Christian values.

  • 34. bayareajohn  |  September 11, 2015 at 9:27 am

    They are certainly biblical values!

  • 35. RnL2008  |  September 11, 2015 at 11:42 am

    "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." — Letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822

    Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, and he said so:

    "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors." — Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823

    "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

    "I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
    – letter to his father, 1738

    "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -in Poor Richard's Almanac

    I can post Presidential quotes cancelling EVERYTHING you claim they say as well……so, again, go ahead…it's still IRRELEVANT!!!

  • 36. VIRick  |  September 11, 2015 at 12:41 am

    So, now we're getting bible lectures from Jim in Texas?????

    The bible has nothing to do with US Constitutional law. Period.

    Additionally, the Declaration of Independence was just that: a declaration of independence. It is also not part of the US Constitution.

  • 37. bayareajohn  |  September 11, 2015 at 1:01 am

    Once again you may have completely miscast the content of JM.
    He's not lecturing. It's not about the bible. Its a real act of congress and presidential proclamation by Ronald Reagan, Republican messiah, celebrating and declaring the bible to be a guiding influence of this country.

    I believe he's posted it iRONically, apropos of the current ferver/fever over how this country "is christian".

    This sort of thing will be the Cruz, sorry, the crux of the next redefinition of religious liberty to mean the advancement of a single religious view, and JM is to be THANKED for reminding us… not mocked.

  • 38. VIRick  |  September 11, 2015 at 3:43 am

    Sorry, John, but this is the purest of pure horse-shit, farted out by none other than jm64tx as an opening salvo to the pompous Reagan proclamation:

    "When she became reconciled to Christ, her name was entered in the Book of Life and her sins were put from her as far as the east is from the west."

    But wait!! If one can stop smirking, for a limited time only, there's more:

    "As far as 'coming clean,' she already did that thru her reconciliation to Christ. No need for her to account to us lowly earthlings."

    As far as I'm concerned, that's lunacy, carried to the nth degree.

    "JM is to be THANKED for reminding us… not mocked."

    OK, so let's settle this. You can thank him, while I mock him. Fair enough??? You've never lived in northern Florida, have you? I have.

  • 39. bayareajohn  |  September 11, 2015 at 9:57 am

    While so many join the bleating about how this isn't a "christian" country and how the bible means nothing in the law, JM has presented the historical quotes and presidential proclamations (that he didn't make up) that should be sobering evidence of the differing opinions on this. You certainly can choose to mock him for choosing to present the reality of the problem, but like the Right's denial of climate change, your blaming the messenger does nothing to help.

    I'm not saying I think JM is perfect, but when he posts authentic quotes and links that are on point to the discussion here, he's contributing positively even if we wish his content wasn't real.

    Did you know or remember the "Year of the Bible“ that Reagan and Congress proclaimed? Is it relevant to the general denial of historical governmental support of Christianity that is so popular in our ranks? Are you better off knowing this, or shunning the messenger who says – "Know the Enemy"?

  • 40. davepCA  |  September 11, 2015 at 10:07 am

    It seems clear to me that his 'message' on this particular topic is nothing but garden variety 'irrational rationalization'. Because when testing a law for compliance to the mandates of the Constitution, the personal religious views of the founding fathers or Ronald Reagan are no more relevant than anyone else's personal religious views, and that specific amount is "not at all". It is the flawed "logic" of the "appeal to authority" and it is entirely irrelevant to the legal question of constitutional compliance of a civil law.

  • 41. bayareajohn  |  September 11, 2015 at 10:21 am

    I agree entirely with your conclusion that the views of major historical figures are not/should not be relevant in the Davis analysis. I suspect JM does too, but he plays his own feelings pretty close to the vest.

    There's ample numbers of postings here and in allied forums to the effect of "this has never been a Christian country!" and "there's nothing in the Constitution" and such that denies the truth of how invasive religion, and particularly Christianity, has been in our history.

    I suggest that this narrow denialist view, repeated for maximum effect, resembles a mirror of the FAUX NEWS style of historical perspective.

    Religion has no RIGHTful place in legal analysis, but it has often and inappropriately been there all along.

    Being reminded that we can't wish it away, but must be politically vigilant, THAT's what I take from JM's reminders of how deeply the religious history goes. Reminders that escape appropriate notice and due consideration when denial and mockery are valued above history.

  • 42. davepCA  |  September 11, 2015 at 10:09 am

    …… not to mention the fact that you can find just as many quotes from founding fathers cautioning AGAINST religiosity and theocracy in government. But again, none of that is relevant to the question of whether a civil law complies with the Constitution or not.

  • 43. A_Jayne  |  September 11, 2015 at 8:57 am

    It may be wise to read his post as a warning of how dominionists will try to (further) co-opt governing documents in this country.

    As with the seemingly-innocuous-sounding titles of some proposed (and some passed) legislation, an understanding of the underlying principles being proposed is crucial…

  • 44. Eric  |  September 10, 2015 at 7:38 pm

    Sure it does, Matthew 19:9. Davis commits adultery every time she has sex with her non-original husband. If she was repentant, she would avoid adultery by remaining celibate.

  • 45. SoCal_Dave  |  September 10, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    This demonstrates one of the (many) problems of trying to insert the bible into civil law. Eric interprets the bible one way, Tx64jm another way. Who decides which is correct? We have a Supreme Court to decide Constitutional questions, but no official interpretation of the bible. Even if you are a bible believer you should want it kept out of civil law or you risk having your interpretation taken away from you by some other flavor of religion that the state decides is the one to follow.

  • 46. VIRick  |  September 9, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    Gay Couple Traveled to Kentucky to Marry and Make a Statement

    A San Francisco couple say they traveled to the Kentucky county of an embattled clerk of court to get married and make a statement for gay rights. Mark Shrayber and Allen Corona are the first couple to complete their paperwork to be married in Rowan County, Kentucky, since the clerk’s office began processing licenses again on Friday, 4 September 2015. For the first two days, 10 marriage licenses were issued in Rowan County, 7 of them to same-sex couples.

    Since the Supreme Court effectively legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide, clerk Kim Davis has refused to give licenses to gay couples, citing religious beliefs about homosexuality. She was held in jail for five days on contempt charges and released Tuesday. In her absence, deputy clerks issued licenses. Deputy clerk Brian Mason says the office will issue licenses Wednesday, 9 September, (and continuing,) in Davis’ absence if anyone seeks them. Lawyers for Rowan County clerk Kim Davis say she will return to work on Monday, 14 September.

    The couple received their license Tuesday, 8 September 2015. They were married later that day in a small ceremony at Morehead State University and returned to the office on Wednesday, 9 September, to file the license with county officials, per legal protocol in Kentucky.

    The couple praised the response of residents, some of whom ran up to hug them. Shrayber says it seemed many were embarrassed by the situation. Shrayber says he’s disgusted Davis is becoming “a martyr for the cause.”

  • 47. FredDorner  |  September 10, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    I'm delighted to see couples do this and I hope more do the same thing when Davis is in the office on Monday.

    If this were 1967 my wife and I would have gladly driven the 600 miles to Kentucky just for the purpose of being denied a license so we could sue.

  • 48. VIRick  |  September 9, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Today, 9 September 2015, in "Brenner/Grimsley v. Armstrong/Scott," the 11th Circuit Court appeal of the preliminary injunction in the consolidated Florida federal marriage case, the Grimsley Plaintiffs have filed their Response to the State Defendants' Suggestion of Mootness.

    The Brenner Plaintiffs already filed their Response to the same Suggestion of Mootness on 4 September 2015.

  • 49. VIRick  |  September 9, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    El Salvador Lawmakers Approve Enhanced Hate Crime Penalties

    Lawmakers in El Salvador have approved two proposals that would enhance penalties for hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. "El Mundo," a Salvadoran newspaper, reported that 75 members of the National Assembly on 3 September 2015 approved the proposed reforms to the Central American country’s legal code.

    Sin Etiquetas, a website that reports on the LGBT-specific issues in Latin America, reported that those who are convicted of killing someone because of their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, or gender would face a sentence of between 30-60 years in prison under Article 129. The proposal would also classify a hate crime in which the victim dies as an aggravated homicide. Sin Etiquetas reported those convicted of threatening a person because of their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or gender would face between 3-6 years in prison under Article 155.

    Andrea Ayala, executive director of Espacio de Mujeres Lesbianas por la Diversidad, a Salvadoran advocacy group known by the Spanish acronym ESMULES, noted that the passage of the proposed amendments is the first time that lawmakers in the Central American country have approved something that “expressly” extends protections to people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. “This is an historic step forward without precedent,” said Ayala. Anti-LGBT violence remains pervasive throughout El Salvador, which has one of Latin America’s highest murder rates.

    See more at:

  • 50. LK2013  |  September 10, 2015 at 4:52 am

    Shepard Smith is getting slammed by conservatives for criticizing Kim Davis on Fox News for her hypocrisy and twisted use of religion – good for him.

  • 51. LK2013  |  September 10, 2015 at 7:14 am

    Evan Wolfson, Perry Bacon, and Brian Brown discussing marriage equality on the Diane Rehm show right now Live …

  • 52. F_Young  |  September 10, 2015 at 7:16 am

    Support For Kim Davis Among Likely Voters Is Less Than You Probably Think

    …..Just 26 percent support Kim Davis, or any public elected official, defying a federal judge's order based on her religious beliefs.
    And a very large majority, 66 percent, 'think the official should carry out the law as the federal court has interpreted it.'….

  • 53. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 10, 2015 at 8:35 am

    Davis' deputy said he will ignore her if she tries to stop him from issuing licences to any qualified couples

    …Brian Mason, one of the deputies, who have been ordered to issue marriage licences in Davis’ absence, said he would ignore her if she told him not to issue licences to gay couples.
    He told reporters anyone seeking a marriage licence will be issued one

    Davis will show her hand as a hypocrite if she tries to stop Brian Mason from issuing marriage licenses, and interfering with his exercise of his religious faith… especially if he puts issued by "Rowan County" and continues to leave her name off the licences, which is what she's been claiming all she wants all along.

  • 54. GregInTN  |  September 10, 2015 at 9:53 am

    It appears to me that Davis can't seem to distinguish between herself and her office. Staver has said that putting "Rowan County" on the form still signifies that Kim Davis is personally authorizing the marriages since she is the Rowan County clerk. The Clerk's office is a government office not a person. A government office doesn't have a religious conscience.

  • 55. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 10, 2015 at 10:26 am

    Kim lied when she said it's about having her name removed from the licenses and her personal approval. Her name is off the licences now, and she still wants her office to stop issuing licences because she wants to force the legislature or governor's hand.

    What this is really about is Mat Staver's Hail Mary Pass to start a resistance movement among county clerks nationwide. Staver wants to start a grass roots movement to get religious freedom legislation passed so he can then start a campaign to elect as many religious bigots clerks as possible to restrict licensing to Gays and Lebesians.

  • 56. Zack12  |  September 10, 2015 at 11:27 am

    Staver tried that in NY and it failed miserably.
    Sans one clerk in a town that only sees a few marriages a year at most, everyone else is complying with the law.
    That will be the case here as well.

  • 57. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 10, 2015 at 11:33 am

    Yes. His hail mary pass is his last desperate attempt to bring thocracy to America. It will fail.

  • 58. 1grod  |  September 10, 2015 at 9:40 am

    John Kasick's – Alabama's Governor's choice for the Republician presidential nominee 2016 – views on public officials doing thier job: Autauga County AL's probate judge Alfred Booth are you listening?

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!