Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Open thread UPDATED

Community/Meta

It looks like a slow news day today. We’ll update this post if anything changes. This is an open thread.

UPDATE: The federal judge has denied Kim Davis’ request for a stay of the ‘clarified’ injunction that applies to all couples.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

122 Comments

  • 1. VIRick  |  September 23, 2015 at 9:57 am

    Searching For The “Gay Friends” Of Kim Davis

    Yesterday, 22 September 2015, Kim Davis told ABC News that she not only has gay friends, she’s personally denied them a marriage license. The search for these alleged friends is now on. First, let’s hear from Kentucky Equality:

    Does Kim Davis have gay friends whom she has denied marriage licenses as she claimed to ABC’s Good Morning America? Are you one of her gay “best friends” that she claims to have? If you are, the media would like to speak to you to verify this claim because Kentucky Equality Federation simply doesn’t believe anything that comes out of this woman’s mouth. If you can verify her claim, please email us here on our Official Facebook Page and we will pass the reporters' information to you.

    The Daily Beast is also on the case:

    The Liberty Counsel, which is providing Davis with legal representation, said Davis would not provide her gay friends’ names to them. “It’s her life,” spokeswoman Charla Bansley said. “I don’t even know who they are.” When pressed about the existence of these friends, Bansley stood firm. “I don’t think she would lie,” Bansley said. “Someone who goes to jail for her conscience wouldn’t lie about that.” Other attempts to locate any of Davis’s friends were also unsuccessful.

    Dwain Wallace, Davis’s first husband said she did not have any gay friends when they were married. As for now? “I wouldn’t have a clue, to be honest.” Brian Mason, the deputy clerk who has granted marriage licenses in lieu of Davis, said he didn’t know if any of the eight same-sex couples he issued licenses to are friends of his boss. Two of the couples contacted by The Daily Beast said they were not friends of Davis. “I’m not sure,” he said when asked whether Davis knows any gay people. “I don’t know.” Mason added he doesn’t “keep up with her personal life” enough to know whether Davis hangs out with any gays, either. http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/23/searching-for-

  • 2. TheVirginian722  |  September 23, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    She's apparently been reading the Sarah Palin playbook. Remember this from 2008?

    "Palin said.

    'I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my “gay friend,” she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people.'

    "The “I have a gay friend card” is employed by Palin in her interview with Couric to act as a form legitimization for her bigotry. Nowhere are we given evidence that this person exists, nor are we given any information on how this person feels about having their sexuality used in this way. The fact that Palin feels that she can leverage a friendship to promote her agenda is an example of heterosexual privilege."
    http://globalcomment.com/sarah-palins-gay-best-fr

  • 3. aiislander  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:50 am

    KIM DAVIS' GAY FRIEND HAS BEEN FOUND!!!! (and he's not happy with her):
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/24/

  • 4. VIRick  |  September 24, 2015 at 9:49 am

    What a surprise! One gay "friend" who appears to no longer be a "friend" now that she has gone completely over the edge with her "saved soul" drama, having converted to this extreme, fundamental, hard-core, heretical "christian" sub-sect four years ago. Still, this individual never requested a marriage license of her, so that portion of her claim, as to her having rejected her Gay Friends' requests for a marriage license remains unproven. Plus, even more basic, the plural of the term "friend," also remains unproven.

    Additionally, I say "heretical" on purpose, because this Apostolic Christian Church of hers is an ugly, retrograde off-shoot of the more mainline Mennonites. The Mennonites are very much into peace and peaceful co-existence, and thus abhor any sort of confrontational drama of the type that she's pulling.

    Howeverl, if it's any consolation to anyone, the Mennonites have been shunning her and her notoriously antagonistic sub-sect ever since they split away in a sanctimonious huff.

  • 5. RnL2008  |  September 25, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Wow, ONE Gay friend and even he DOESN'T truly know who Kim Davis is…..what a SHOCK…….umm, NOT…….lol!!!

  • 6. aiislander  |  September 23, 2015 at 11:25 am

    Yes, this claim by Davis struck me as unbelievable also. Simply her version of the old lie "Some of my best friends are…."

  • 7. aiislander  |  September 23, 2015 at 11:53 am

    I was certainly disappointed, though not at all surprised by Paula Faris' uber-softball interview of Kim Davis. (Although the 'Nightline" program's edit of the interview did contain a very short glimpse within it that was less flattering of this off-the-wall nutcase than did GMA, The View or World News Tonight's versions) My hopes were very low after hearing Faris on her "The View" gig days ago defending Davis, claiming that she can't be called a hypocrite because her four marriages and children born out of wedlock happened before she was "born again". (A status which Faris herself says she shares).

    I was particularly disappointed with Faris' question asking Davis if she thought her beliefs outweighed the "happiness" of the couples denied licenses. If I were her producer, I would have certainly pointed out that much more than these couples "happiness" was involved. How about their Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Of course if I were an ABC exec producer I would never have assigned the biased Ms. Faris to this interview, although I'll bet that the Davis team specifically insisted on having her do the interview.

    For the "over two hours" she spent interviewing Davis, we sure didn't get much footage, mostly a lot of her weeping and how she's been called a hypocrite and told by some that her god doesn't love her for judging others, and of course trying to claim some of her BFF's are gay, but they respect her and are still good friends.

    I also suspect that she REALLY want's to hang on to this job for pension purposes. If she has a typical government type pension, her benefit will probably be based upon years of service factored with the highest 5 years of compensation. I'm sure her compensation (and thus any contributions she made to the pension fund) for the last twenty some years as a subordinate to the previous county clerk (her mother) was probably a fraction of her current $80K which she only started receiving upon taking office this year . Thus if she hangs on for at least this term, her pension will be orders of magnitude greater than if she actually did the decent thing and resigned now. I wish a local reporter would look into this.

  • 8. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:03 am

    It's not just for pension purposes….it's the ongoing $80K annual salary, probably much higher than the median of that small town. And that's for at least 5 years. If she can continue getting re-elected, she and her 5th, 6th, and 7th husband can live pretty well. Remember she can continue getting divorced and remarried as often as she wishes because "she is Forgiven". She could murder, rape and pillage, and still be the victim because she is "Forgiven"…or so she self proclaims.

  • 9. aiislander  |  September 23, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Did a little research, and, just as I suspected, her pension is formulated just as I surmised. She surely wants to hang on to her job for as close to 5 years as possible after being elevated to the $80K salary after her election last fall. It will have an enormous impact on her lifetime pension to her benefit. She's been working for the county for 20-some years, contributing to the pension fund based upon her undoubtedly far lower salary, yet her pension will be based upon her 5 highest compensated years of service. Since she was originally employed before August 1, 2004, she will get a VERY generous pension, to which she contributed a disproportionately small amount.

    The details can be found here:
    http://www.kaco.org/media/13331/OVERVIEW%20OF%20K

    Anyone have some media contacts to get this into the public view?

  • 10. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 23, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    Thanks for the research!

  • 11. aiislander  |  September 23, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    You're welcome! This is undoubtedly the REAL REASON KIM DAVIS WILL NOT REISIGN!

    She will receive 2.2% annual salary (plus overtime PLUS total accumulated sick leave) during her 5 years highest compensation X total years of service regardless of the 24 years she contributed based upon her MUCH lower salary before she took over her mother's job in 2015.

  • 12. sfbob  |  September 23, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    I understand the strategy. The old federal civil service system works in a similar fashion, though overtime pay is not included and sick time is only added in one-month increments, plus it is based on high three years rather than high five. I spent 38 years working for the federal government and made sure I stuck around long enough to max out my pension before I retired. One difference for me though: I actually did my job. I even took on one last assignment a month before I retired just so I wouldn't spend my final few days with nothing left to do.

  • 13. tx64jm  |  September 23, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    The formula is Salary X Factor X years of service = annual benefit

    The factor for employees in the CERS is 2.2%

    So at her current salary … $80,000.00 X 2.2% = $1760.00 X 24 = $33792.00 / 12 = $2816/mo

    At her previous pay …$62,000 X 2.2% = $1364.00 X 24 = $32736.00 / 12 = $2728/mo

    Her new salary gives her an extra $88/month in pension pay.

    Note that as the elected county clerk, unlike a deputy county clerk, her salary is set by statute and she does not get overtime.

  • 14. aiislander  |  September 23, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    Are you seriously telling us that her base salary when she was a deputy or assistant clerk over the 5 years previous to 2015 averaged $62K per year?

    (and that she does not get comp time for overtime hours worked?)

  • 15. tx64jm  |  September 23, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    As a deputy clerk, her publicly reported pay was $62,000/year for pension purposes (hourly rate and overtime).

  • 16. aiislander  |  September 23, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    And that is the AVERAGE for the FIVE years prior to 2015? Seriously?

    I do understand that there was a local bourhaha about her excessive overtime, and possibly other costs to the county, was there not?

    And are you telling me that she does not continue to receive comp time in lieu of overtime?

  • 17. tx64jm  |  September 23, 2015 at 6:29 pm

    That was her publicly reported pay in 2011, so go figure.

    Remember, the formula is average of 5 highest years … they dont have to be consecutive, or the most recent 5 years.

    As an elected official, she cannot grant herself "comp time".

  • 18. aiislander  |  September 23, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Well it IS the 5 year average of the most highly compensated years that count. What was her base pay and total compensation for each of the 5 years prior to 2015 (or highest compensated 5 years if different)?.

    Then there is the not insignificant factor of accumulated sick leave and at what rate that will count as "compensation".

    Where is the rule that she is not eligible for comp time?

    And did you or did you not hear about the local outcry over Davis' "excessive overtime" and possible other costs to the county? (although how any county clerk's office with at least 7 employees serving a county of only 23K people could possibly need overtime at all defies the imagination.)

    (At least you did redact your false statement that her pension will be less than her social security…thank you.)

  • 19. tx64jm  |  September 23, 2015 at 7:23 pm

    "Where is the rule that she is not eligible for comp time?"

    "Elected officials in Kentucky get paid whether they work or not. The state auditor's office confirmed that officials don't accumulate vacation, sick or comp time."
    http://www.local8now.com/news/headlines/Rowan-Cou

    Yes I heard about the outcry over her overtime when she was a deputy … thats why the fiscal court cut the budget of the county clerks office.

    As far as retracting the statement about social security, I make slightly more than she does now, and my predicted social security (according to the SSA website) will be north of $3k/month at retirement age (67). Since she and I are about the same age, her pension at $2800/mo will be less than her social security. So based on empirical evidence, what I said was true.

  • 20. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 23, 2015 at 10:04 pm

    Except as a deputy clerk, she was not elected, so the OT rules would not have any effect if she were still a deputy clerk.

    In any event, the Constitution bars 'ex post facto laws' (Latin for "after the fact"), thus Kentucky's 'rules' about OT would not affect anyone prior to the passage of that 'rule'. (Article 1, Section 9, third paragraph). And the 'rule' effects ONLY elected officials, not deputy clerks (who are not elected).

    I applaud your efforts to find a law, regulation or rule the supports your opinion. However, you should carefully read the rule, the comment you are responding to, the US Constitution, etc., and see if your comment is appropriate for the comment you supposedly are responding to.

    I could say the Autobahns in Germany were indication of Hitler's good intention of ALL Germans to travel and see all of Germany. We have the evidence of the killing of those with physical and mental 'handicaps', the Holocaust, trade unionists, etc. that he did NOT have good intention of ALL Germans, especially those of Jewish ancestry.

    The true purpose of the Autobahns? To move German troops in as rapid a manner as possible.

  • 21. tx64jm  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:14 am

    Whats your point?

  • 22. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:04 am

    Mike doesn't have a point., he doesn't have to have a point…He's "Forgiven".

  • 23. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:48 am

    I didn't realize that agnostics (which I am, maybe many would consider me to be an atheist) could be 'forgiven'.

  • 24. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:53 am

    As an atheist, I can forgive (or not forgive) anyone I want. And I forgive you…whether you want to be forgiven or not. So, you are forgiven, pointless or not.

  • 25. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 25, 2015 at 10:34 am

    Since 'being forgiven', 'forgiving' someone and/or sin are theological concepts, peculiar to only one or some religions but not others, can someone who believes in someone 'being forgiven' or having the 'ability to forgive' truly be an atheist?

  • 26. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:47 am

    You have a lot of 'facts', but the 'facts' rarely are germane to the discussion.

    For instance, are deputy clerks 'elected officials'? If not, the 'rule' does not apply to them, since the 'rule' you cited applies only to elected officials.

    For instance, since the US Constitution prohibits 'ex post facto laws' (and rules and regulations are considered the same as laws), does anyone in Kentucky owe the state of Kentucky for OT prior to the passage of the 'rule' you cited?

    The Federal government has a 'rule' that supervisory officials cannot be represented by the union. They can pay union dues, but they can't be represented by the union. My first supervisor paid union dues, but couldn't be represented by the union. Why? He felt the unions were important. And he was not from a coal-mining or steel producing area ('notorious' for union sympathy), but from South Carolina, a state that is well known as NOT being 'union friendly'.

  • 27. tx64jm  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    No deputy clerks are not elected officials. So, they are eligible for overtime.

    County Clerks are elected officials. They dont get overtime. Their salaries are set by a formula based on the law.

    Not sure what all this ex post facto stuff is about. We are simply discussing her monthly pension amount, which is based on the average of her 5 highest years compensation.

    For all years prior to this one, when she was a deputy clerk, her overtime is included when calculating her compensation. Since she is now ineligible for overtime, there is no overtime to include. Ex post facto is not implicated.

  • 28. wes228  |  September 24, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Ex post facto laws only apply to criminal law.

  • 29. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    The US Constitution does not specify, thus ex post facto laws apply to ALL laws, whether criminal or not.

    I dealt with procurement matters for more than 25 years for the US Federal government. All changes in procurement regulation had the effect of law. A few changes were immediate, but most changes were at some date in the future (sometimes weeks, sometimes months in the future). NONE, zero, nada were ex post facto regulations, and the agency boards that promulgated the regulations made it very clear that the regulations could ONLY be forward from the law change, as the US Constitution prohibited ex post facto laws (rules or regulations) of any type.

    Procurement law is FAR distant from criminal law. But both are controlled by the US Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws.

  • 30. wes228  |  September 25, 2015 at 4:51 am

    Sorry Mike, your bosses at federal procurement were misinformed. The Supreme Court has never extended ex post facto protection outside the realm of criminal law. They lay out precisely what constitutes an ex post facto law in Calder v. Bull:

    "1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender."

    The decision then goes on to note that while all ex post facto laws are retrospective, not all retrospective laws are ex post facto.

  • 31. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 25, 2015 at 10:55 am

    And you realize that not all laws, rules and regulations are criminal? Such as administrative laws, rules and regulations?

    And you don't think the Administrators of the GSA and NASA and the Secretary of Defense (the parties that are in charge of developing and maintaining the 'Federal Acquisition Regulation' [and NONE of which I directly worked for, the implied meaning of "your bosses".] ) don't have legal counsel to advise them? Has the President, Congress, and/or the courts overruled their determination that ex post facto laws, rules and regulations are only for criminal acts or actions?

  • 32. wes228  |  September 25, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    If internal agencies of the government want to voluntarily choose to not put in place retroactive regulations, that is certainly within their ability. The Constitution does not require them to do so however.

    Calder v. Bull is still the leading authority on what constitutes an ex post facto law. Not all laws or regulations that apply retroactively necessarily are unconstitutional. See Smith v. Doe for instance, where the Supreme Court upheld a law with a retroactive effect.

  • 33. GregInTN  |  September 23, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    Haven't noticed this being reported elsewhere yet but Bluegrass Politics is reporting that Judge Bunning has denied Davis' latest stay request (so, I guess now she can file it again at the 6th Circuit).

    Bluegrass Politics ‏@BGPolitics

    Judge Bunning denies #KimDavis' motion to stay his expanded preliminary injunction ordering her to issue marriage licenses to all.

  • 34. sfbob  |  September 23, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    Equality Case Files has now posted it on their Facebook page and in Scribd:

    files.eqcf.org/cases/015-cv-00044-121/

  • 35. 1grod  |  September 23, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    Active link: and clear explanation for denial :
    http://files.eqcf.org/cases/015-cv-00044-121/

  • 36. sfbob  |  September 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Thank you for the corrected link. Not sure why mine got truncated.

  • 37. jcmeiners  |  September 23, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    I just read the denial. I'm impressed with Judge Bunning's patience. Mine would have run out long ago in the face of such frivolous motions.

  • 38. Rik_SD  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:13 am

    who pays all these legal bills??

  • 39. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:06 am

    Since 'Liberty Counsel' is doing this 'pro bono', the legal costs are coming from the pockets of 'Liberty Counsel'. Actually, the money is coming from the source of income for 'Liberty Counsel', in other words, the contributors to the bigots.

  • 40. RnL2008  |  September 23, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    Hi fellow EoT's,
    Just wanted everyone to know we are safe, back home and just got internet back up and running today.

  • 41. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:15 am

    Welcome back Rose.

  • 42. RnL2008  |  September 24, 2015 at 4:13 am

    Thanks Sweetie……..it's been a rough month and hopefully our County will be on the mend and rebuilding efforts.

    As for Kim Davis……….why is it that idiots like her feel the need to claim they have "GAY or LESBIAN" friends who are okay with being denied their Fundamental right to marry WITHOUT calling these idiots out on the carpet? Does Kim Davis really EXPECT us to believe her? Because I sure in hell DON'T!!!

  • 43. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:44 am

    What happened to your county?

  • 44. RnL2008  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Google "Valley Fire". It was the most recent that hit Cobb, Middletown and Hidden Valley Lake

  • 45. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:48 am

    Wow. It's tragic. Glad you and Mrs. Rose are ok. Take care of yourselves.

  • 46. RnL2008  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:52 am

    We are home and getting things done, offering any help to our neighbors and being there for our community.

    The family is good, but this sort of devastation, truly helps one refocus on what's important in life and for us, it's knowing we have good people in our lives who care about us.

    Thank you all for being a part of our lives. We truly are blessed 🙂

  • 47. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    Yes. It's times like this that amplify how important family is. And marriage is one of the cornerstones that create family and community. How some people could grant that to themselves and then deny family, community and lifetime commitment to others is beyond me. I'm glad your family is safe. Take care of your community.

  • 48. ianbirmingham  |  September 24, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    "How some people could grant [marriage] to themselves and then deny family, community and lifetime commitment to others is beyond me." – Really? Many polyamorous people firmly hold that very same perspective with respect to rabid monogamists who seek to deny them their right to family, community, and lifetime commitment to others. Do you now say that those monogamists are completely wrong when they so vigorously disrespect and deny the most basic & fundamental human rights of those whose love takes the form of a polyamorous family?

  • 49. VIRick  |  September 24, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Ian. Quit. Stop. Now. Seriously.

  • 50. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    I say nothing of the sort. No one's preventing anyone from being married. You know as well as I do, all Americans under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution are free to marry the one man or one woman of their choice without regard to sex, as long as they meet all other legal qualifications. You really should listen to VIRick. Even the mormons came to realize their mistake of unnatural polyamory. Marriage in the US always has been and always will be only the legal union of two people to the exclusion of all others. Anything else is shacking up.

  • 51. Zack12  |  September 24, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    Indeed, I'm sorry but three's a crowd, simple as that.

  • 52. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    "No one's preventing anyone from being married."

    I guess you've never heard of Kim Davis, the various officials in Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, other officials in Kentucky, etc?

  • 53. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:51 pm

    Last I heard, Kim Davis was enjoined from implementing her no marriage policy and Brian Mason has been giving out marriage licences to "several "qualified" couples over the past several days. Last I heard, court after court has turned down Davis' request to stop marriage licenses from being issued in Rowan County. The governor of KY has stated that the licenses Brian has been issuing are valid….so I don't know what you're talking about. The only person in Rowan county who has been prevented from getting married, that I'm aware of, was the kook who wanted commit bigamy with Jesus (Jesus is already married to the church….don't ask me what's up with that).

    As for any of the other places you mention, all they can do is temporarily road block marriage licenses…they can't prevent gay couples from getting married. Where there is a will there is a way. Perhaps you need to stop getting your "facts" form TexasJim. Yes, certain individuals are making it a challenge to get licenses in certain places, but all they can do is temporarily prevent couples from getting a license not from getting married. Unless state law says that a couple must get licensed and married in the jurisdiction in which they live AND those in charge of licensing in those jurisdictions aren't issuing licenses….then everyone who has legal capacity to get married can get married. It might just take some effort. But if they're REALLY intent on getting married, they won't let these few small people get in their way. And no one, gay or str8 has legal capacity to commit bigamy or any other sort of poly-shenanigans. And that is a good thing.
    🙂

  • 54. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    "No one's preventing anyone from being married."

    Yet you actually acknowledge some are doing that. Whether they are actually succeeding or not is not the question here. Otherwise, why the lawsuit against Kim Davis?

    And I was NOT the person advocating for 'plural marriages'.

    Maybe it is you who should take a look at the postings of TexasJim to see why so many of us don't like his plethora of facts that have little to no bearing on the discussion.

  • 55. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 25, 2015 at 12:01 am

    I actually acknowledge nothing of the sort. Delaying, and making it difficult is not the same as preventing. The law suit against Kim Davis is because previously, she had implemented a no license policy in her office. She said she had no problem with the chief judge issuing licenses, or someone from the state issuing licenses. She just doesn't want them issued in her name or her authority. She isn't going to gay weddings with a shot gun to "prevent them"… is she. Gay couples in Rowan County are currently getting licenses from Brian Mason, and since June 26th have had the ability to get a license from practically any county clerk in the country.

    No one said you were advocating for plural marriages. Even I know you're not that backwards. Somehow I don't even think TexasJim is that backwards. The comment on poly amourous "marriage" was meant for the one backwards person.

    I've stopped reading Texas' Jims original nonsense. Although the first time he's made any sense is when he questioned whether you had a point. I have a feeling many of us often ask ourselves the same thing…does Baltimore have a point here? The one point you finally do have: "many of us don't like his plethora" of "factoids". So why do you engage him…it's pointless… He even pointed that out. That was a rhetorical question btw, so don't answer it. Mike logic gives me a headache.

  • 56. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 25, 2015 at 10:22 am

    Then the Alabama Supreme Court's rulings are A-OK with you?

    The attempt to prohibit the issuance of marriage licenses is alright with you? You would be OK with Mississippi's attempt to eliminate the issuance of marriage licenses?

    And Kim Davis and others of her ilk know that as long as they hold office, their intent will be to stop ALL same-sex marriages. Making it as difficult as they can.

    BTW – Indiana and Maryland are two states where any marriage MUST occur in the county where the application is issued. I'm sure there are other states with the same rules.

    And residency requirements for marriage (and divorce) vary from one state to the next, from zero time requirements for either partner in some states to as much as a year for at least one partner in other states.

  • 57. RnL2008  |  September 24, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    Will do Tony and again, thank you all for your well wishes:-)

  • 58. DEV_ally  |  September 24, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    As a fellow bay area resident, my heart goes out to you and yours in the wake of the fire. I have a number of friends up in that area as well…

  • 59. RnL2008  |  September 24, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    Thanks Dev_ally, today we got a chance to see the side area of Middletown and the amount of homes that are gone is just heart wrenching…….we now have mobile commands up by Insurance Companies, FEMA, PG&E, plus AT&T are here working around the clock to get lines up and working. PG&E has already put up over 600 new poles and hung line to several miles to restore power to over 7000 people!!

  • 60. weaverbear  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    Relieved to hear you and yours are alright. Which community in Lake county were you evacuated from?

    I have two patients that have been recently burned out of their homes – one in Cobb and the other in the Butte fire.

  • 61. RnL2008  |  September 24, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    We actually live in Hidden Valley Lake, up in the top section and though our area was not even touched, everything below us and in specific areas are totally gone.

    Hugs to you all for your thoughts and positive energy!!!

  • 62. sfbob  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Glad you're okay Rose. A friend of mine lives in Angwin; she was a voluntary evacuee but was able to return home early and since her family lives in Napa she wasn't much inconvenienced. A friend of mine lost a summer home in the Butte Fire; his family had owned it for decades. Those of us who live in big cities think stuff like this won't affect us or anyone we know…until it does.

  • 63. RnL2008  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:38 am

    Thanks, we were in Redding for an event, but we had good folks at home to help get my daughter and the puppies out of the area…….when we came home the next day, the smoke was bad, but our home was standing……..we know to many folks who lost everything in this particular fire and most are still assessing what they need to do to start to rebuild. The kids will return to school on Monday.

  • 64. Fortguy  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:08 pm

    Good luck to you. I live in Fort Davis TX which had to be evacuated four years ago in a massive fire. The fire began west of the nearby town of Marfa and spread incredibly fast because of gale force winds that day. In one afternoon, townspeople first noted the distinctive smoke clouds of a wildfire, then being able to see a wall of fire approaching if you merely drove a couple of miles south, to within an hour after that having state police patrols driving along every street in town telling everyone to evacuate. My somewhat extended family all grabbed what we could, loaded into vehicles with dogs in our laps, and spent the night with friends in the closest town to the north, Balmorhea.

    We were allowed to return about midday the following day, but the landscape back home around town looked like a hypothetical carbon planet. Fortunately, most of the town was spared. Properties along the south edge of town burned as did some isolated ranch houses. The fire was also able to burn deep into town and destroy homes along an overgrown ravine. Beyond that, the local volunteer fire department valiantly and effectively saved the town.

    After that, it took awhile for life to return to the 20th Century, much less the 21st. We lived for a couple of days by oil lamps. The power utility, AEP, brought in workers from far and wide including from several states to replant, seemingly like ant swarms, burned-out utility poles and restore power lines. Despite that, both towns to our south, Alpine and Marfa, were out of power for 1-2 days themselves even though they were never directly affected by the fire and had no working gasoline pumps. The closest town to the north, Balmorhea, is much smaller and quickly ran out of supply. In that town, one of the town's gas stations jacked their prices up 50 cents/gallon during the evacuation. My town's cellphone tower didn't rely on a backup generator, so there was no phone service until power was restored.

    The natural gas utility, even while the evacuation was taking place, closed and padlocked everyone's meter until each property could be inspected. I didn't get gas restored until a full week after the evacuation. My home's water heater and stove required gas, but I had a portable two-pot coiled hot plate to boil water and cook. A family member living in the house next door had an electric water heater for showering. The water utility, although having purchased and expecting to receive a generator, did not have one in service. The utility's supply, stored in gravitational tanks, was sufficient to withstand the disruption with pleas for conservation despite pump shutdowns, but their inability to filter the supply resulted in a week-long water-boil advisory.

    The Trans-Pecos region of Texas is cattle ranching country, but that drought was so extreme. For three years, I could drive to any nearby town and never see a single cow grazing. The rains didn't return until last year when finally one could see ranchers tepidly begin to graze cattle again. Last year, I also saw my first pronghorn antelope in that time, and they used to be ubiquitous. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has had to capture antelopes from the Panhandle and release them here to sustain the local population. White-tail and mule deer also haven't recovered. I've never seen anything like this before.

    The state has recovered from the drought in the past two years–if anything Austin and Houston have seen devastating flooding. Reservoirs are brimming, and fields are green once again. What hasn't recovered is groundwater levels, and they probably never will. Especially in the northwestern Texas High Plains that relies upon the Ogallala Aquifer, present agricultural practices will cease to exist, and small towns will blow away in the wind by 2050 if more sustainable crops and methods aren't adopted soon.

  • 65. RnL2008  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:44 pm

    Wow, that's awful, but it's good to know that in time the area can recover. We have all sorts of warning signs to beware of folks claiming to be LICENSED Contractors because this sort of disaster brings out the lowest of lowlife scum trying to scam money from the Federal Government and hard working folks trying to rebuild.

    Lake County is one of the few counties in California that DOESN'T have ANY natural gas. Either folks use Propane, Kerosene, Diesel or Electricity to heat their homes and water. This was a major concern for Firefighters because the houses are close and propane explodes.

    We have also been designated as a Natural Disaster Area by the President himself, which is why all of the Mobile Command Units are out in force.

  • 66. JayJonson  |  September 25, 2015 at 6:43 am

    So glad you are back and safe, Rose. I can only imagine the trauma caused by the fire. Happy that you and your family escaped unscathed.

  • 67. RnL2008  |  September 25, 2015 at 10:25 am

    Thanks Jay, once our daughter and the puppies were safely out of the area and we reconnected the following day, it still was all surreal. Even now, looking at all of the damaged area outside of Cobb, is totally surreal that this fire burned like 40,000 acres in less than 12 hours………one person is still missing, many on Cobb still aren't able to return to their homes or to survey the damages…….but lots of folks outside the area are here trying to help all of us in some way.

    Hugs to you all for your support and well wishes…….my family is truly blessed to know such wonderful folks as you are!!!

  • 68. brchaz  |  September 23, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    'I'm not a Venn diagram': Men and women take to Twitter to correct misconception that being bisexual means you are 'half gay and half straight'

    Bisexual men and women have taken to Twitter to defend and explain their sexual identity on Bi-Visibility day.

    Celebrities such as Cara Delevingne and Miley Cyrus are talking openly about being bisexual but according to members of the LGBT community it's still misunderstood – despite the awareness day celebrating it's 16th year.

    Zak O’Brien posed the question ‘How can we eradicate biphobia?’ with a diagram from the BRC (Bisexual Resource Center).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3246396

  • 69. Zack12  |  September 23, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Kim Davis's line about how she has gay friends is a classic line used by bigots to justify discrimination and unjust laws by saying I have black/female etc friends to counteract the claim they are racist, sexist, homophobic etc.
    It's a flat out lie.
    No "friend" would tell a couple they have to go to another county to get services they are legally entitled to or that it's okay for them to be refused service because of who they are.

  • 70. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 23, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    Perhaps her definition of friend is a Facebook "friend". With her recent 15 minute of fame her Facebook friends have probably quadrupled… and perhaps she estimates 3% to 10% of her Facebook friends are gay. And so she would deny any and all of them licenses.

  • 71. VIRick  |  September 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm

    Oregon: State Court Of Appeals Upholds $400K Fine For Nightclub That Banned Trans Patrons

    Portland OR — The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that a Portland bar owner must pay about $400,000 in damages to patrons he told to stay away. The state investigated a bar formerly known as the P Club after the owner left a voice message for one of the Rose City T-Girls, a group of transgender customers that frequented the bar Friday nights.

    The message said business was down Fridays, likely because people incorrectly assumed the P Club was a gay or transgender bar. He asked the group to stop visiting. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled in 2013 that the bar violated an Oregon law that prohibits discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

    The Appeals Court upheld the ruling on Wednesday, 23 September 2015. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/banned-transge

  • 72. Zack12  |  September 23, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justice-scali
    Scalia does still appear to be upset by the SCOTUS ruling this past June.
    Funny how the bigots demanded again and again that Ginsburg and Kagan recuse themselves yet said nothing about this man who has made it clear time and time again he views us as sinners not worthy of protections.

  • 73. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:19 am

    If he continues to harbor such hostility, it may just make his itty bitty heart EXPLODE…well that and all the fatty plaque.

  • 74. Sagesse  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:59 am

    I am at a loss for words. How can you be a justice of the Supreme Court if you are not equipped to decide to whom your Constitution grants rights?

    "What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?" he asked, according to the AP. "It has nothing to do with the law. Even Yale Law School doesn't teach that stuff."

    But the voters and the legislators can figure it out?

  • 75. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:13 am

    Plus this claim that the democratic process was stopped by the Court is completely disingenuous. The whole point of creating constitutional amendments defining marriage was to take the topic off the table permanently…to etch it in stone, to the extent they could. The point of a constitutional amendment is to stop the legislature, the courts and the voters from ever discussing the subject again…to the best extent possible. Had they really wanted to allow the democratic process to work itself out, they would have left a statute in place which could be changed by either the legislature or the people. While even a constitutional amendment can be undone…the purpose of constitutional amendment is to take decisions out of the hands of the courts and the peoples representatives permanently.

  • 76. DrPatrick1  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    My issue is that the 14th amendment grants equal protection. Even he must admit this. As marriage has changed, it's meaning is no longer restricted to 2 different and mutually exclusive gender roles. As a man and woman can marry, either or neither of them working, or doing household chores, coming together to make children, raising children, or not including children in their family, there is nothing inherent in the gendered needs of the marriage. As LGB couples are equally situated for this modern institution we all call marriage, it would be unconstitutional to not allow marriage equality!

    OR, marriage still has a legal requirement on a woman that it does not impose on men, or vice versa.

    That is the question. that is the only question. Does marriage have unique requirements on men (or women) which requires one of each? if so, (like a requirement to be a breadwinner, a requirement to bear children, a requirement that a woman must submit to a man's will, etc) then the LBG couples are not similarly situated. If NOT, then they are and must be treated equally. It is not a question of which relationship is better, which relationship is holy, which relationship "god designs." Those are questions much bigger than the courts, but the former is not. He cannot see through his own bigotry and prejudice to see this!

    The court did not decide which strategy (equal marriage, or unequal marriage) was correct, it took decades, centuries, even millenia to have marriage become what it is today. It took a Civil war in this country to decide that Equal Protection was a thing. But these are settled issues that were not before the court. The court was only asked if gay couples and straight couples were similarly situated WITH RESPECT to our marriage laws. Not if they are identical, not if they were the same in every aspect, only if they were situated equally with how marriage laws work. If so, they cannot be treated unequally. If they are not, then it may be appropriate to treat them differently. As it turns out, there is nothing unique in the law that a woman must do that a man cannot do in marriage, and vice versa. As such, it is discrimination to discriminate against them.

    He is too obtuse to see this!

  • 77. 1grod  |  September 24, 2015 at 7:17 am

    Zack and Sagesse: It surprises me that once the decision is made that the Supreme Court Justices either say nothing or positively acknowledge the role of the Court in interpreting the law and the constitution – most probably based on precedence: close ranks. It is not helpful when there is still resistance and related questions may come before the Court, to be spouting negative statements about any decision. In Canada, the Supreme Court judges of the court have a low visibility.

  • 78. VIRick  |  September 23, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    Two days ago, there was some sort of glitch in the thread set-up, which somehow, knocked 3 comments off of the page. One of those comments is below, in reply to Tony (whose comment also disappeared), who posted a comment about Andy Samberg's hosting at the Emmys:

    Tony, if you look further down, past that article, and into the comments section, there's a whole string of Kim Davis memes, the best of which is Porky's:

    It shows Kim Davis with arms upraised in front of the building sign on the front of the Carter County Detention Center at the press conference following her release from jail. Her arms are raised in such a way as to block out the letters, "o" and "y," in the second word. Below, the caption reads, "Lord, Give Me a Sign." http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/21/andy-samberg-r….

    Needless to say, the "sign" the Lord is giving her is: C-unt-.

    Hallelujah and praise the Lord, the "sign" has thus been given for all to see!!

  • 79. Fortguy  |  September 23, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    It's a good thing she's represented by Matt Staver to provide her a lifetime supply of douchebaggery.

  • 80. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:22 am

    That was an AWESOME meme/pic Rick. I think those posts got deleted when I reported my own post to get someone's attention to close the italics HTML, 'cause the posts in question disappeared 5 minutes after I sent the report and the HTML tag was fixed.

    Andy Samberg's joke was pretty funny too. In reference to Paula Dean…"If I wanted to see an intolerant woman dance…I'd have gone to one of Kim Davis' four weddings". It's ironic that she came out of jail to "eye of the tiger" considering how many guys have boned each other to that song." Best observation of the week!

    Kim Davis' irritates me most when she just brushes off the hypocrisy of her 3 divorces, 4 marriages, having children while being in an adulterous relationship, not to mention her gluttony, and still she has the gall to judge others, and say…."I'm forgiven" with a smirk. Why is she forgiven for her sinful relationships, over and over? If she believes gay marriage is a sin, then those people can also stay in their relationship and be forgiven.

    Someone needs to ask Kim, if another County Clerk should be able to put a no marriage licences policy in place because it violates his/her conscience to support adultery, because god doesn't condone divorce and re-marriage…that's IN THE BIBLE. I don't know of any religion that says you can be forgiven from a sin you continue in and don't turn away from… i.e. continue in ones adultery, which is emphatically against the god's law.

  • 81. tx64jm  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:35 am

    "Why is she forgiven for her sinful relationships, over and over?"

    She's not forgiven "over and over". When she asked God into her heart, she was forgiven once, and God blotted out her prior sin forever. She has not divorced and remarried since then, so she has not committed adultery against the rules of the bible.

    "I don't know of any religion that says you can be forgiven from a sin you continue in and don't turn away from… i.e. continue in ones adultery, which is emphatically against the god's law."

    That would put aside the redemption that is procured by asking God into your life as your savior. If your sins continue from the past, then by definition there is no redemption, and God's act of sending Jesus to fulfill the law and save us would have no meaning.

    Thats why it says in Revelation 1:5:

    "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood".

  • 82. wes228  |  September 24, 2015 at 6:34 am

    Is her current (fourth) marriage valid or not valid in the eyes of God? If divorce is against God's law, then her current marriage would be invalid. She would continue to be fornicating with a man she is not married to, which she is unrepentant of.

  • 83. tx64jm  |  September 24, 2015 at 8:14 am

    "If divorce is against God's law, then her current marriage would be invalid."

    See you're trying to apply a human concept to God's law, which doesnt work.

    When you get saved, a line is drawn in the sand. Nothing that happened prior to that line is remembered. So the prior sins (divorces) are forgotten.

  • 84. wes228  |  September 24, 2015 at 8:48 am

    Her divorces may still be forgiven, but even after that line was drawn, she is still fornicating.

  • 85. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:20 am

    Exactly. It's no different than murder. Just because you're forgiven doesn't mean murder isn't a sin. Basically, with this "forgiven" concept, you can do whatever the hell you want…because you now have a get out of hell free card. So what's her problem with handing out marriage licenses…She has her get out of jail/hell free card. She can march right up to "the Lord" and says…ah ah ahhh….you can't send me to hell for doing my job….I'm forgiven…remember. So step aside Lord, I'm washed in the blood, I'm here to claim my mansion and I'm looking for the heavenly feast all you can eat banquet room.

  • 86. VIRick  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    "…. but even after that line was drawn, she is still fornicating."

    OMG!!! I just had this nightmarishly repellant visual of being forcibly made to watch Kim Davis still fornicating!!!

  • 87. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    What I don't get is why anyone would volunteer to fornicate with Kim Davis.

  • 88. Eric  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:50 am

    Divorce is not the sin, ongoing adultery with the new "spouse" is the sin.

    Or, am I misunderstanding your dogma and married born again gays are not sinning either when they engage in sex with their spouse?

  • 89. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    All sin is nothing more than an error, a mistake. So technically if you fill up your gasoline tank with diesel fuel, you've committed a sin. If you answer on a quiz that 9 plus 3 = 21, you've sinned. If you send a sext to your mom that was meant for your boyfriend, you've committed a sin. If you record Grey's Anatomy when your wife specifically told you to record Heros Reborn, you've committed a grave sin. If you have gay sex, but did not intend to procreate, then there is no sin, no mistake. If you had gay sex with the intent to procreate, then that is sin. If you substitute salt for sugar in your banana bread…that's probably the biggest sin of all. No amount of forgiveness can fix that.

  • 90. hoodatsayhoodat  |  September 24, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    Your imaginary god is not relevant to the real world and your filthy old book of campfire tales handed down from illiterate bronze age goatherders who routinely massacred each other over which
    one's god had the biggest penis, is not useful.
    Unless, that is, one happens to run out of toilet paper.

    Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
    Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

    There is no such thing as 'sin'. It is a completely arbitrary, illusory, artificial, capricious and irrational concept that varies according to which delusional belief system is attempting to define it. What is 'sin' to one is holy sacrament to others, and vice versa.

    Make believe gods have no connection to the real world and neither does the imaginary "Satan" that some people appear (and/or claim) to believe in.

  • 91. TomPHL  |  September 24, 2015 at 6:42 am

    The sin of adultery was her making it with anyone other than her first husband. The forgiveness is for that sin and does not change the fact that she was previously married and thus is guilty of adultery when she continues to do so with anyone else. Jesus clearly did not allow divorce and remarriage. The fact that most Protestant churches ignore this has always puzzled me.

  • 92. tx64jm  |  September 24, 2015 at 8:20 am

    Assuming she was Christian back then yes. But she wasnt. She was only very recently saved.

    And you are incorrect, when you ask for forgiveness for sins, ALL sins are forgiven. Mark 3:28 records Jesus words: ("Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.")

  • 93. TomPHL  |  September 24, 2015 at 9:19 am

    Her 1st marriage was not a sin that could be forgiven but a fact that remained a fact after all sins were forgiven. Your logic would allow her to marry her brother because all facts before her rebirth no longer counted.

  • 94. sfbob  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:26 am

    To be honest I have no problem with divorce. I'm Jewish; we don't think divorce is a sin but in a way that's neither here nor there. I don't care if she's forgiven for her previous transgressions or not; the debate should not be about whether Davis is actually behaving in accordance with the rules of her current faith. I would like Davis to do her job which, her delusions notwithstanding, is entirely secular in nature and consists of issuing marriage licenses to those who are legally eligible to receive them.

  • 95. TomPHL  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    I agree but, I find arguing that she and Tex are wrong in there own frame of reference amuses me.

  • 96. sfbob  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    Oh there's no getting around the fact that it's amusing to yank her chain on the issue of religiosity.

    I know many people who are devoutly religious and in fact not a few of them are LGBT. There are plenty of very religious people who clearly understand that the Establishment Clause is there for a very good reason…in fact it is there for THEIR protection. Believe it or not there actually are evangelical Christians who are politically progressive, pro-LGBT rights, pro-choice and pro-feminist. The fact is that political positions aren't inextricably linked to any religious doctrine no matter how much the extremists scream that they are.

  • 97. guitaristbl  |  September 24, 2015 at 9:29 am

    What's your deal on this site troll ? Really there are many far right homophobic forums for you to find like minded trolls..

  • 98. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 25, 2015 at 12:33 am

    His deal is to spread dis-information, and get his kicks out of depositing cut and paste "factoids" with his right wing spin. It's a tactic, that NOM and Company used in the beginning of their campaign. But as time went on, people began to see through the ploy…and as we all know, in the end it failed. And it fails here as well. Not one single person here buys his bs. Well maybe one that I can think of.

  • 99. FredDorner  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:52 am

    tx64jm says: "Assuming she was Christian back then yes. But she wasnt. She was only very recently saved."

    Actually Kim "sharia law" Davis was a nutty Southern Baptist before she became a nutty Pentecostal, so she's been born wrong multiple times.

  • 100. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 11:28 am

    And so the question is, why did she allow all other manners of sinful marriages to happen. Surely believers and non believers have married in her jurisdiction. Surely other adulterers, such as herself were allowed to re-marry. Davis is a Cherry Picking Hypocrite who basically is all powerful because she is an elected official, and can make policy for the county because she's forgiven.

  • 101. bayareajohn  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    Trying to rationally parse individual's personal interpretation of magical proclamations derived by iterative reinterpretations of ancient letters is a fools errand… and that is actually also a proclamation of those interpretations… where the believer is instructed not to try to understand, for the ways and means of god are by definition unknowable. Sort of a "get-out-of-reasonableness-free card".

  • 102. VIRick  |  September 24, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    "She was only very recently saved"

    That's a completely subjective, unsubstantiated piece of horse-shit. How would you know whether or not some one else has been "saved?" And how would she know if she's been "saved?" First off, she'd have to stop fornicating. Has she? Are you there to watch to see that she has quit?

    She and her heretical sub-sect have been and will continue to be shunned by the more mainline Mennonites who want no part of it, them, her, or anything having to do with any aspect of the drama.

    Stop blaspheming the Mennonites by defending this uncontrollable witch.

    Besides, she's using her half-baked "religiosity" in a governmental position to force her beliefs upon others in direct contravention to the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. If she's unable to separate her religion from her job, or her personal self from her office, then she needs to give up her job and her office so she can then go deal with her religion full-time. This is precisely why the Amish/Mennonites do not participate in government. She needs to adhere to that standard, if religion is so important to her, and stop trying to manipulate the system to have it both ways.

  • 103. davepCA  |  September 24, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    What a bunch of irrelevant rhetoric. Regardless if the actions of Davis are those of a hypocrite (they are) she still has no business choosing to interfere with legally eligible people being given access to a legal civil marriage. The position of County Clerk has never included any such authority to choose to deny legal marriage to any legally eligible couples, nor to alter the forms to suit her personal wishes, etc. She has been completely out of line in ever assuming or acting otherwise, regardless of her personal religious views and regardless of how much of a hypocrite she is.

  • 104. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    How is it irrelevant when a person in a position to deny other peoples civil rights holds herself to one moral standard and those she was elected to serve to a completely different moral standard. It's precisely the fact that she plays fast and loose with her own moral standards, and uses those standards to then deny the legal rights of others that causes the problems.

  • 105. davepCA  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    The irrational rhetoric to which I refer is all of the transparent apologist nonsense from the troll about her being 'saved' as if that somehow excuses her actions toward the tax paying citizens who came to the office of the county clerk to get a marriage license. Yes, she's certainly a hypocrite, and the specifics about her hypocrisy which result in the violation of other people's rights simply to appease her own prejudices is certainly a particularly reprehensible form of hypocrisy, but all of that only speaks to her personal character.

    The relevant facts are that, regardless of whether she considers herself "saved" or not, and regardless of her own personal sketchy history regarding "the sanctity of marriage", she 'chose' to deny legal marriage to legally eligible citizens, even though the county clerk has never been authorized to make any such choice. The clerk is required to provide a marriage license to all legally eligible applicants. Period. Doesn't matter what her views are, and it doesn't matter if her own past actions makes her claims about her views hypocritical or not.

  • 106. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    When you're right you're right. Judge Bunning hasn't bought her bull crap (really Mat Staver's), and it's doubtful the sixth circuit or SCOTUS will buy it either. Now the KY legislature come next January….that's a whole other story.

  • 107. VIRick  |  September 24, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    "Jesus clearly did not allow divorce and remarriage. The fact that most Protestant churches ignore this has always puzzled me."

    If those same denominations were to begin casting out all the fornicators and adulterers from among their attendees, they'd lose most of their congregants.

  • 108. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 24, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    You do know that the Jesus Christ of the bible was not an actual living person, or deity for that matter. Contrary to popular belief, the bible is not a historical record of facts. It's a collection of moral stories and allegories imagined by men that has been hobbled together and translated and re-translated multiple times and in multiple languages. The character of Jesus is nothing more than your own wonderful human imagination. Interestingly, the founding fathers could have made the law of the land based on the authority of Jesus Christ…but they never once invoke the name Jesus Christ in the Constitution. I'm just sayin that because Kim Davis uses the authority of a fictional character to mistreat her fellow human beings. If she can invoke the authority of a fictional character, then I can invoke Huckleberry Finn… or Mary Hartman Mary Hartman.

  • 109. TomPHL  |  September 25, 2015 at 11:29 am

    No I don't know that. It is possible but, I think it is more probable that he was an actual historical person. How much of what is reported about him is fiction is another matter. My unbelief is independent of his historicity.

  • 110. allan120102  |  September 24, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    Any news on slovenia and Colombia? I read on wiki that the constitutional court was going to debate about the appeal of a conservative group asking for a referendum. Not sure if its true or how it went.

  • 111. VIRick  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:40 pm

    This Is An Actual Thing: Kim Davis Erotica

    Via the "New York Daily News:"

    Kim Davis was apparently the inspiration for a character in a new erotic novella that finds lesbian love after she’s jailed for taking a religious stand on marriage. The author, Lilith St. Augustine, is using her creative writing skills to poke fun at Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. The steamy book, titled “Kim Goes to Jail: An Erotic Story,” tells the story of Kim, a small-town woman who gets time in jail over a religion and sexuality dispute. But the short story gets hot and heavy when the homophobic character meets a gorgeous female cellmate who is more than willing to show Kim how to have a little fun behind bars. “One day I’m standin’ on the side of the Lord against sexual perversion, and the next I’m in prison orange watchin’ a buck nekkid m—— vixen ’bout to do impure things to herself and to my soul in one single, terrifyin’ act,” the character says in the novel.

    The e-book is on Amazon for 99 cents. http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/24/this-is-an-act

  • 112. davepCA  |  September 24, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    Ha!! Reminds me of those wonderfully melodramatic fictionalized accounts that were appearing here in the comments section a few years ago, about the 'behind-the-scenes' shenanigans on the "bigot bus" during NOM's idiotic road trips. (Remember "NOM"?).

  • 113. VIRick  |  September 24, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    "Remember 'NOM?'"

    It would appear that they were last heard from when the 9th Circuit Court affirmed the denial of their appeal in the Oregon marriage case on the grounds that NOM did not have standing.

  • 114. Sagesse  |  September 24, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    Wednesday night, Davis told Fox News's Megan Kelly "If I resign, I lose my voice." Seems only fitting she should learn that others have voices too.

    Schadenfreude is sweet.

  • 115. davepCA  |  September 24, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    Her position as county clerk includes no such "voice". There is nothing in the position which entails her to 'voice' any views, be they hers or anyone else's, through her job duties. She is required to give marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples regardless of what views she may wish to 'voice'. What a self-centered sanctimonious ass.

  • 116. Sagesse  |  September 24, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    Apologies if this has been posted and I missed it. Review of Roberta Kaplan's newly published book.

    Review The inside story of the fight for gay marriage from the lawyer who defeated DOMA [Los Angeles Times]
    http://www.latimes.com/books/reviews/la-ca-jc-rob

  • 117. sfbob  |  September 24, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    The book won't be available until October 5th. I can't wait to have it show up on my Kindle.

  • 118. VIRick  |  September 24, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    Bob, when I first spotted your remark in the "Recent Comments" sidebar, I fully expected it to be a glowingly-excited reaction to the news of the just-published Kim Davis jail erotica.

  • 119. sfbob  |  September 24, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    I suppose I ought to have been specific.

    Kim Davis erotica? Thanks, but no thanks. 😀

  • 120. Fortguy  |  September 24, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    Somehow I doubt that. Anyone who would write a "glowingly-excited" Amazon review of lesbian erotica about Kimmy knowing perfectly well from news reports what she looks like with her clothes on cannot possibly be a gay man. He would be forced to surrender his gay ID card immediately, return his toaster, and forever have an asterisk affixed to his signature on the super-secret gay agenda we are imposing upon America.

  • 121. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 24, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    As reported by Reuters, on multiple Baltimore City television stations, and from the 'Washington Blade' (among other sources):

    'Judge issues landmark ruling in favor of trans inmate'
    ( http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/09/24/judge-i… )

    The first paragraph reads:
    "An administrative judge has issued a landmark ruling in favor of a transgender woman who claimed guards at a Maryland prison taunted and humiliated her."

    No reason is given for the three months plus delay in reporting this.

  • 122. mndrupaldesign  |  October 13, 2015 at 2:42 am

    thanks for nice update…I will check out soon to see next update. Just keep up your hard working on that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ruhrv7Zbfg

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