Pedantry: The bible isn’t against abortions, either. In fact, it says this lady’s first husband could have forced her to have an abortion (performed by the priest) after she became pregnant with twins from her (future) third husband [numbers 5].
That’s always a reliable cop-out for socially conservative libertarians because they know it ain’t gonna happen, so they don’t have to take ownership of the consequences either way. The “let’s get the government out of marriage entirely” movement has precisely zero momentum, including from the people who float the idea from time to time. (Note that Rand Paul himself entered into a government-recognized marriage in 1990 and has never tried to introduce legislation which would end the practice.)
Some conservatives are definitely hypocrites and it can be a useful exercise to point out their ideological inconsistencies. But one of the reasons why they have been so successful in the U.S. is that they do not acknowledge their own irrationality. They do what they do and feel righteous in doing so while everybody else tries to explain why they shouldn’t have done so.
One of the reasons why this judge’s decision is so laudable is that effectively ignores the faulty argument and penalizes the action. If people in the US have any hope of reversing this disastrous course, they will need to respond pragmatically to the ‘true believers’ and insincere huskers of the conservative movement.
But man you are right, Mr. Raccoon: the cognitive dissonance is as strong as ever.
…and with every other (successful) holy book in existence. Ambiguity is a prerequisite for these tomes.
“It wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment decision,” she said. “It was thought out, and I sought God on it.”
Boy did she ever get some bad advice.
Yes. Especially the part that says the government can’t enforce religious views on others. Oh wait. That’s exactly what she’s doing as a government official.
God is a pretty hardcore constitutional scholar, after all.
Sadly, there’s still some fine upstanding young citizens following in her footsteps in Missouri:
I’ve often wondered how they do that exactly. Do they do a rigorous course of Greek and Hebrew followed by years of Biblical study, along with reading the Fathers (like those pesky Episcopalian clergy do who support gay marriage) or do they chew over a few half-digested cherry-picked verses of the Bible translated into English with no context? Tough one.
I shall light a candle to Dagon (not gonna bother the big tentacle on this one) that she doesn’t become martyred, at least moreso.
There’s no outstanding issue other than that fact she needs to do her job. Thats it. She is being punished for not doing her job. Its that simple.
They why is easy, she’s going to make a ton of money in book deals, possible movie rights, and crowdfunding after her woe-is-me story goes out nationally in a month or so.
Yeah, the legal benefits of state marriage are too significant. For instance, would a hospital be required to recognize the terms of your ketubah? An insurance company? Tax agencies? Etc. etc. (But this is also part of why marriage equality is such an important issue anyway).
Yeah, the right is gonna freak out over this, but you’d think saner heads (if there are any left) would realize that having state officials arbitrarily decide what rules they want to obey is not good for anybody.
Not surprisingly I’ve actually heard a couple of different answers for this. The first was a simple “well, there’s a chance they might convert”.
The second more insidious argument is that same-sex couples are “obviously wrong”. This argument was made in a debate I had with someone who claimed to be consistent in his beliefs. That is, he claimed he would refuse to serve a divorced couple or a couple who didn’t share his particular religion, but only if he knew that about them. If they were strangers he wouldn’t question it and God would give him a free pass on that.
I cite this solely as an illustration of the lengths some people will go to in order to justify their bigotry.
Don’t cross the streams!
Can we get a ruling that she needs to do something about that hair? I could make it fabulous.
A contempt detention can go on indefinitely, until the behavior can no longer be meaningfully deterred. So until the end of her term. The idea here is that the prisoner “holds the keys” to their freedom.
Is this an example of the much dreaded “gay agenda”? Or is this just the latest marketing play by big cosmetology?
Hahahaha, neither, those are waaaay too much effort.
To ask God a quesiton, you close your eyes, bow your head, maybe do something with your arms, and say, “Jesus, should I do this?” and then he basically confirms what you wanted to do anyway because really you’re just asking yourself.
Every. Single. Time.
Kim Davis is a democrat - or is that what you meant?
Well, she didn’t say she was upholding the amendments.
I’ve noticed that some people have a weird idea of what the Constitution is. The Supreme Court already ruled on gay marriage, and I think an omniscient god would be aware of their ruling. God didn’t write the Constitution, a bunch of guys who owned slaves and grew hemp and had religious ideas that would be heretical to her wrote the Constitution. It’s not a religious document, and prayer isn’t going to get you some unique insight that can’t be gleaned from reading law books.
Guess who the elected clerk before her was?
I can’t find any statements from her rival candidate, wondering what his position would have been.