Browse By

Clerk Declares Theocracy In Kentucky

Kim Davis, the Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, is making news today. She is waging a personal crusade against marriage, and revolting against the American system of democratic government under the Constitution to do so.

Davis doesn’t approve of some people’s marriages, and so she is refusing to issue them marriage licenses. Specifically, Davis doesn’t want same-sex couples to get married, although such marriages are now legal in Kentucky, as they are across the United States.

Davis claims that it isn’t just her opinion that makes these marriages invalid. She says that, in denying marriage licenses to gays and lesbians, she is operating under “God’s authority”.

What Davis doesn’t understand is that gods don’t have any authority over marriage law in the United States. We don’t allow divine beings to enter into communication with county clerks to create local laws forbidding interracial marriages, or marriages between first cousins, or marriages between people who are on a romantic rebound, or marriages between people that the gods just don’t like the looks of.

In the United States, marriage is a legal status that, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, is supposed to be granted equally to all people.

Kim Davis doesn’t give much account to the Constitution, though. She’s declared that Rowan County, Kentucky will now live under a Christian theocracy, in which government officials will interpret supernatural signals from the divinities of their choice, leading them to ignore the law whenever they want to.

Want to rob the bank in Rowan County, Kentucky? Declare that you have “God’s authority” to take everyone’s money. Want to drive drunk? Do it under “God’s authority”, and maybe they’ll let you off the hook.

What’s next? Shooting people under “God’s authority”? Why the heck not? Once you allow invisible beings to uproot the law according to religious inspiration, all order goes right out the window.

18 thoughts on “Clerk Declares Theocracy In Kentucky”

  1. ttwith says:

    This clerk is making the point that her religion, under law, forbids her from awarding marriage to people of the same sex. As far as I know and see here, she is not saying that God has spoken to her specifically. God’s word the Bible, forbids same sex marriage, for some pretty significant reasons.

    1. J Clifford says:

      No, this clerk is trying to force everyone in her county to obey the laws of her own religious beliefs, rather than the laws of the country. She is trying to impose her rules about life, which she attributes to an invisible supernatural being, on everyone else. Well, what if she decides that her deity doesn’t want left-handed people to drive cars? Can she deny drivers’ licenses to those people?

      1. Cody says:

        Where do you get off telling her that she has to do something that would hurt her ego? Come on thats not nice man!!!

  2. Quinton Underwood says:

    Thank you, Thank you, I have been looking for a place on the net to go to when I needed a REAL DEMWIT area, and with this article you have put together in regards to a clerk and her beliefs surely fills that void.

    There is no doubt about it, you have shown that you really have an IQ just above a box of rocks.

    I Remain

    Quinton Underwood

  3. Dave says:

    I wonder, Rowan, in a few generations when the social issues pendulum swings back the other way and some future Supreme Court decides that the old definition of marriage will stand for the constitutional law of the land, if the Rowan of their times will pick on some little old lady in a backwater county somewhere who insists on continuing to marry same sex couples.

    Nope, I don’t think so. Your post is a nastygram to about half the people in the U.S. who had the new definition of marriage rammed down their throats (pardon the pun) and it really does not address the issue at all. Used to be “liberal” was an underground, David v. Goliath thing and one could always count on a liberal to subvert the status quo. Now that you are the status quo, subversion is ridiculed. Your post seems to be an attempt at having some fun being Goliath by mocking a slim minority as the new deviants. Gotta watch it Dude, or you’ll end up being the pigs that galvanize an entirely new subversive underground.

    I’m not so much taking issue with your opinions on the matter, but just with the gloating — it’s really not wise or fruitful, so let the authorities handle it (heaven forbid) and just enjoy being the status quo.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      You’ve not had same-sex marriage rammed down your throat. You don’t have to get married to your friend Nathan. Apparently you consider it a violation of your personal dignity for someone else, somewhere, to get a marriage license when you don’t like them. Oh, how others’ rights to go about their lives hurts you!

      P.S. If you get married to a lady, are you shoving something down a gay man’s throat?

    2. J Clifford says:

      Pick on? Pick on a “little old lady”?!?

      First of all, Kim Davis is not little.

      Secondly, she’s not old.

      Third, she’s not behaving like a lady, unless you mean in the sense of an aristocratic Lady in some Old World monarchy in which the Lords and Ladies are allowed to decide arbitrarily what the law will be according to their whims.

      Being liberal is not about David vs. Goliath, Dave. That’s an old-fashioned Old Testament Bible Story about righteous killing by people who are anointed as kings by invisible supernatural divinities.

      Being liberal is about respecting the equal rights of everybody under the law, whether we like them or not. County clerks have the equal right to apply the law, rather than individual power to declare what the law is in their county according to what their individual religious beliefs are.

      Under the 14th Amendment, heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal rights under the law to get married.

      Kim Davis is subversive, all right, but being subversive isn’t necessarily the ethical or moral thing to do. When a person is subverting the law in order to force their bigotry on other people, it’s the wrong thing to do.

      1. Cody says:

        When the Law is subverting a person in order to force their bigotry on other people, it’s the wrong thing to do!

  4. Jim says:

    Hah, Rowan, we wrote on exactly the same topic today!

    I agree with you — this is about someone trying to use the power of government to force everyone under her jurisdiction to live by her narrow religious standards. That’s not just morally wrong; it’s a violation of U.S law.

  5. Mark says:

    She was hired to a job where she is supposed to issue marriage licenses according to state law. She is refusing to do her job. Anyone else who refused to do their job would get fired immediately. If she has religious reasons for not being able to do her job, she needs to quit.

  6. ella says:

    “What Davis doesn’t understand is that gods don’t have any authority over marriage law in the United States. We don’t allow divine beings to enter into communication with county clerks to create local laws forbidding interracial marriages, or marriages between first cousins, or marriages between people who are on a romantic rebound, or marriages between people that the gods just don’t like the looks of.”

    You are using a very old deception device to make yourself look in the right. It is a defensive mechanism to make the other person look as though they are stupid or ignorant.

    1. Davis does not ever mentions gods. She said it is her religious belief in God that causes her to use her freedom of speech rights.
    2. One of the two wishing to marry, made the comment “There are no consequences.” to homosexual interrelations, in response to her saying they would have to live with the consequences of their choice of lifestyle. They need to read some of the tons of material, physiological and medical on the consequences of their choice. And no, I am not going through that again, I have already presented ample material in past posts.
    3. This nation was founded in part for the purpose of Freedom of Religion, to worship God freely as desired. Atheists and Satanists have there own views, which do not have to be forced on those of different beliefs.
    4. The Supreme Court made a decision – a decision made by old men, and one old woman – that is sending a message to heterosexuals. That message it that old men want young girls and the more young males they can sidetrack, the more young girls for the old men. Nothing new there, just that, as in the waning days of Rome, the leading legal body made it legal.

    Rome Fell.

  7. ella says:

    I knew the Supreme Court has no legislative power, what I didn’t know was that the Congress had never passed a law concerning the marriage of homosexuals. My ignorance. So this is the way it really is,and states are actually marrying homosexuals, and have been deceived. That is remarkable.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      The Supreme Court *does* have the power to judicially review and nullify legislation. Read up on Marbury v. Madison here:

    2. Jim Cook says:

      Another factual error: the Congress DID pass a law regarding the marriage of same-sex couples in the 1990s, called the Defense of Marriage Act, which was in turn declared unconstitutional. Read up on the Defense of Marriage Act here:

  8. ella says:

    They do have the right of Judicial Review, but not to legislate, to create law, especially without a Congressional vote. Tort is used in lower courts, but the Supreme court must follow the dictates (or at one time was required to) of reviewing cases which are based on the current law and review them for legitimacy balanced against the intent of the Constitutional law. Since the intent of law was based on Biblical law, marriage is defined as the union of man and woman, making legal the conjugal relations between them. Of course today that is respected less than a bag of potting soil. The Court has fallen into the habit of simply saying something and then watching the nation believe the Congress is not needed anymore. It is not the Courts fault that the people have quit relying on Congress.

  9. Cody says:

    Marriage Law is unconstitutional- chew on that! Think about it- Marriage has always been done in a religious ceremony with the taking of vows before various gods or goddesses, and gifts where given maybe a party was had for a week or a day or a month, its not to be ruled on by the state…

    Scrap marriage law and create Civil Unions, which could include any number of adults and could be rewritten in any way that the individuals wished it to be, and an individual could be in any number of civil unions!!! that takes care of this whole damn issue

    1. J Clifford says:

      Cody, it is factually untrue that marriage has always been done in a religious ceremony. There are many, many people who have been married in non-religious ceremonies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!