Maybe God's authority only works inside a church, because it looks like court's authority is taking over now. Justice served.

Good!

"Judge Bunning said Ms. Davis would be released once she agreed to comply with his order and issue the marriage licenses."

Why would anyone give her another chance to work in that office?! In any other job you'd be fired for non-compliance faster that you can say "God's will". Put her in jail and then let her search for a new job. This hand slapping is getting softer each day.

Enjoy the Graybar hotel, attention whore.

She can't be removed from office unless and until there is a recall or the next election. The best analogy I've heard is to compare this to a Quaker public official who refuses to issue a gun permit because that would conflict with his religious beliefs in support of pacifism. The judge did the right thing, to show the importance of complying with the rule of law. Imagine the chaos if all public officials got to pick and choose the laws they would enforce.

She'll get a star turn on the Fox News "American Victim" slot.

I don't know much about going to jail but I know bad people usually get out because of bail. Is that a factor here?

@3, that's what I was thinking too but she's an elected official. You can't just fire an elected official. I'm not sure what the process would be to remove her in Kansas but I imagine it would be some sort of recall election or something.

BTW, I wouldn't call throwing her in jail "hand slapping [that] is getting softer each day?

Her deputy clerks get a half hour to decide whether they're going to do their jobs, or go to jail, and possibly get on the bigot gravy train.

I'm popping popcorn for lunch!

I don't believe bail is part of the process for contempt charges.

@3 - The best part is this: this action is rubbing her nose it in. She can sit in jail until her term expires or she can capitulate. The judge is wisely not allowing any wiggle-room around evading your government duties. By sticking it out, I'd bet she's lost the opportunity to resign, but maybe that's still an option available to her even in jail.

@9 If FB is to be believed (questionable) there is an issue of fear and intimidation keeping the deputies towing her line. In a small rural county, a gov't job is a treasured thing, and in Davis' case it appears to have been somewhat hereditary (gotta love rural 'murka), so it's easy to imagine that every single person in that office was completely under her thumb in a very real way. Now that she's removed, it may allow many of them to do what they've been itching to do - many of the other employees may have been anxious to comply with the court.

@10 I seriously hope not but it wasn't discussed in the articles I read. Bail has never made sense to me though.

@7 - No bail for contempt. Only the judge can rescind his order.

The trailer-trash cash will rain upon this martyred saint. The waaaaambulance has already reached NASCAR speed.

@8 The Legislature would either have to call a special session or wait until the new term starts and then commence impeachment proceedings to remove her from office. Members of the Legislature have said since all but three clerks in Kentucky are issuing the licenses they do not want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a special session so they will wait until they normally start.

I also read the reason the judge did not fine has, as was requested, was because she testified that she had people calling her office every day offering her money. The judge figured her supporters would just pay any monetary sanctions which is one of the reasons he put her in jail.

She could crowdsource fines and a generous retirement from gofundme but she can't crowdsource jail time.

Smart judge!

@12 It’s not just “rural 'murka” that elects by heredity…
Louisiana = Long
Virginia = Harrison + Lee
New York = Roosevelt
Chicago = Daley
Pennsylvania = Muhlenberg
Ohio = Taft
Tennessee = Ford
USA = Bush + Rockefeller + Kennedy + Udall + Clinton

It's a sickness.

Anyone know if she still gets paid? Someone in the county needs to sue her for fraud or embezzlement or whatever you call it when you taken public monies for services not rendered.

My money says she resigns in jail. We should start a betting pool on how many days she waits to do so… What’s her Kickstarter account up to now?

She is following Thoreau's textbook for Civil Disobedience: consciously disobey the law which offends, and then pay the price.

I suspect, however, that she will not use her time to write a seminal work of American literature, but will instead spend it playing the victim card.

@22

Do you think she knows who Thoreau was?

I look forward to the inevitable publication of her "Letter From A Rowan County Jail", which I have no doubt will become a RWNJ best-seller in the tradition of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Turner Diaries".

I'm hoping for solitary confinement or lesbian prison bdsm love for her.

And I am also hoping this gets covered by Callan's Berry.

Seatackled, response 1: prison rape is not a joking matter. It's a serious problem.

Seatackled, response 2: that said, lesbians have way more taste than _that_. Ew.

As a true Christian I'm sure she will accept that God's will is manifesting through this judge, and will spend the rest of her life in prison ministering to the downtrodden and forgotten, just as Jesus Christ would have done.

Why not just kill her instead?

Conservatives had no problems rounding up someone to shoot MLK of all people, no problem asserting state violence on protesters, etc. What do we got, some lit up circle-jerk web forums? No wonder the run roughshod over politics, they're playing against whiny pushovers.

@27 - Agreed. Rape humor is NEVER funny.

@27

Sorry for the misunderstanding; I wasn't trying to refer to prison rape. I was going for hypocrisy, but using women's prison exploitation films as the template. (I guess those films are kind of prison rapey, but doesn't the ingenue usually succumb to her passions and embrace her fate?)

@27

Also, maybe Mrssss. Davis doesn't look half bad. . .

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/20…

@ 31, Just imagine what's gonna happen tonight when those dentures come out. Bow chicka wow wow...

There goes lunch!

she can't crowd fund to pay a fine levied for criminal behavior.

@7, bail won't get you out of jail for contempt. You have to "purge" yourself of the contempt, or wait for the appeal.

Bye Felicia!

@29

No, no. You're not a paranoid nutnob advocating murder! Not at all!

@ Davis

Seems reasonable. I can' t see what choice the judge had. Kim Davis held an elected position which required resignation or compliance with admittedly stupid but still binding Supreme Court decisions. Her refusal to resign or do her job lands her in jail. Rule of law and all that.

Seeing as you all agree, by your comments, I imagine you now support the Rentboy raid on the same principles? Right? I mean, the proprietors of an advertising service for hookers and the hookers purchasing that service were all openly flaunting the laws, right?

Oh. Forgot. Liberals have no principles. It's all about how you feeeel about things.

@39: It is amusing that you find it so painful to be in accord with your fellow Sloggers that you are forced to construct a straw-man to assuage your fear of contamination.
You're adorable.

@39:

To flaunt is to make an ostentatious or defiant display: She flaunted her intelligence.

To flout is to show contempt for: He flouted the law.

@42

So you mean like, "Seattleblues flouts human decency by flaunting his bigotry"?

@42

Thank you. I appreciate the correction.

@43

Aw, that's cute. It thinks it's clever.

@41

Umm, no. When someone (Kim Davis for example) is wrong, they're wrong. When soneone ( left wing kooks for example) happen on rare occasion to be right, they're right.

Neither situation causes an issue for me, since reality is more to me than occasional agreement with the toddler left. Not really all that hard to understand, actually.

@39 "advocate" is a strong word. I certainly wouldn't do it myself or help someone else do it.

I'm just pointing out the reason we're in this scenario now.

@39, 44:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!

@47

While I'll grant you have vast personal experience of and enjoyment in evil and obviously you're very simple, I wouldn't imagine purity is a concept for which you've ever had any understanding.

But hey freak, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

@45: Uh huh, then why not leave it at that? That Ms. Davis is wrong, and that we are all in agreement? Why did you feel compelled to scramble to spin a scenario that would shore up your wobbly sense of self?

@39: "Kim Davis held an elected position which required resignation or compliance with admittedly stupid but still binding Supreme Court decisions. Her refusal to resign or do her job lands her in jail. Rule of law and all that."
Let's go back to what you ACTUALLY think about the Supreme Court upholding laws that you personally dislike but with which you are legally bound to comply:
"I'll never buy a financial product not in my interests at an illegal government command and I'll never pay an illegal tax for exercise of my liberty. To hell with liberals. To hell with Obama." (source)

Man, Seattleblues, you change your opinions more often than you change your underwear. Have you ever tried being ideologically consistent once in a while? (Beyond your simple and childish ideology of "things I like are good, things I don't like are bad", that is.)

@45: "reality is more to me than occasional agreement with the toddler left"
As if you know anything about reality. In last week's episode of "SLOGgerino Super Slam: Grudge Match", you expressed the (ignorant and factually-challenged) opinion that there is no such thing in human biology as sexual orientation, and challenged me to prove otherwise. I provided you with FOURTEEN PRIMARY SOURCES showing a conclusive neurophysiological link to sexual preference and a possible genetic link to male homosexuality. You proceeded to just say (paraphrasing) "oh, I don't think they're right, all those scientists are probably just wrong about everything".
So lemme ask you this, Seattleblues: if you ignore facts when they go against your views, if you trust your opinions over all the evidence of the outside world, what makes you think you know anything about reality?


I predict that you'll just say that you automatically know more than me because you're older than I am. To that potential response, I reply: it must really burn you up that I'm half your age and I already know more than you'll ever learn about biology, human or otherwise. What does it say about you that you've spent forty-odd years on this planet and still don't have a clue about what makes the natural world tick?

@44

That is so Buffalo Bill of you.

@52: that was a fun read. Thanks for linking that.

@51

Kim Davis is an elected official bound by her status to comply with even bad Court decisions.

I'm a private citizen. I have no such obligations.

See the difference, boy?

@52

Blah blah blah.

Look, junior, I don' t care if a pervert wants to choose a deviant lifestyle with another adult pervert. Not my business.

I don't care if another adult feels perverse desire for the same gender. We all feel inappropriate sexual desire at some point, I'd imagine. Whether such inappropriate desires are deviant (homosexual, pedophilia etc etc) or otherwise healthy in nature but in the circumstances problematic, they don't justify behavior.

See, playing justification games with psuedo science isn't relevant. Nor does such PC nonsense make perversion healthy or natural. Are you going to advocate for letting alcohol addictions run their course, if biological links are found to that behavior inclination? No more cancer treatments, boy? Just because it may be people are 'born that way?' Of course not.

Choosing the homosexual lifestyle is the right of adults. Asking that society celebrate that choice, by falsely calling a gay union marriage for example, is the act of a child.

@55: Wait wait wait.
Did you actually just say that as a private citizen you have no obligation to abide by the rule of law?

@56, so your response to scientific study is "blah, blah blah." I would guess "Arglebargle" is sound legal argument for you as well.

There are countless peer reviewed studies that show SSM has no negative impact on society, on children raised in those marriages, or on M-F Marriage whatsoever. There are countless studies that show pedophilia, cancer, and alcoholism do. So your definition of "perverse" is, well, perverse.

Your last paragraph is nothing but noise signifying nothing. No one asked "society" to "celebrate" the choice by calling gay marriage, marriage. Since SSM has been required in my backward state of Georgia, no one has dragged me, kicking and screaming, dowsed in confetti, to a gay wedding, to be force fed yummy cake and champagne.

In fact, it has had zero impact on my life whatsoever. *But if anyone wants to drag me along, I totally would be up for it!*

The only one here who appears governed by his "fee fees" and using his "fee fees" to dictate and control the personal actions of others is you.

What I love most about this thread is

We have a public official openly defying the law, with foreknowledge and intent.

And we're discussing how to get rid of her
but saying we can't do this or that because she's an elected official and procedure must be followed.

There is an easier more effective way. High conservative officials are getting in line to be next. It won't stop because there are no consequences. What, 3 days in jail, boohoo. Anyone can do 3 days, it's easier than camping on labor day weekend. GoFundMe ain't crying about it either, they get their cut too.

@55: "Kim Davis is an elected official bound by her status to comply with even bad Court decisions. I'm a private citizen. I have no such obligations."
THAT'S RIGHT, FOLKS. SEATTLEBLUES THINKS THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW IF YOU HOLD AN ELECTED OFFICE. Of all the possible ways you could have responded to my post, you chose that which is unequivocally the most batshit. Congratulations.

@56: Easy there buddy; whether homosexuality is a good or a bad thing isn't what we were discussing. No, we were talking about whether sexual orientation is an actual trait rooted in human biology, rather than simply a pattern of conscious choices. You claimed that sexual orientation doesn't actually exist; I provided a fine selection of studies proving otherwise. So, leaving aside the ethics of homosexuality, tell me: do you have any counterargument to the lines of evidence demonstrating that sexual orientation is rooted in brain physiology? ANSWER THE QUESTION. It's simple enough!

@56: Oh wait, you called it all "pseudo science". Okay, Seattleblues, you wanna play? Let's play! WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING, to your best understanding, is not rooted in fact?
-The human brain is divided into many parts, each with their own functionality.
-The activity of certain parts of the human brain in response to given stimuli can be accurately measured and recorded, allowing the function of said parts to be ascertained.
-There are parts of the brain responsible for sexual arousal and romantic (pair-bonding) attraction.
-Parts of the brain differ in structure and activity between (typical) men and women, including those parts known to be responsible for sexual arousal and romantic attraction.
-In self-identified homosexuals and transsexuals, many of those sexually dimorphic regions differ sharply from the typical state of their sex.
-Therefore, sexual orientation is tied to differences in parts of the brain related to sexuality and romance.

If all of those statements are based in fact, my point stands. You disagree with me but have refused thus far to present your reasoning why. Which of the above is not accurate, and why not? Remember: we are not talking about the ethics of homosexuality, but simply whether or not sexual orientation is rooted in biology.

And I'll ask you again: if scientists don't truly understand the roots of sexual orientation, HOW WERE THEY ABLE TO DELIBERATELY TURN RATS QUEER IN A LABORATORY EXPERIMENT?

@56 - I must say, I find it refreshingly honest that you've truly reduced the content of your arguments to "science is for poopyheads and I'm right because I said so."

I don't care if another adult feels perverse desire for the same gender. We all feel inappropriate sexual desire at some point, I'd imagine. Whether such inappropriate desires are deviant (homosexual, pedophilia etc etc) or otherwise healthy in nature but in the circumstances problematic, they don't justify behavior.

Indeed. Only foundational assumptions demand that we even define such behaviors as appropriate or inappropriate, or determine whether behavior requires justification. You haven't offered any empirical reason to think that a gay man's desire for sexual congress with other men requires any more justification than my using my left hand to operate chopsticks.

See, playing justification games with psuedo science isn't relevant. Nor does such PC nonsense make perversion healthy or natural.

Ideology, it's true, has nothing to do with what is healthy or natural. The regularity with which something occurs in nature says much about whether it is natural; the effects of actions on one's health are what determine whether it is healthy. Ideology still determines whether it is moral, but if you expect others to abide by your ideology--indeed, if you're going to spend as much time as you do spouting ideology as if it were self-evident--you should be prepared either to offer cogent arguments up for debate or be prepared to be exposed as the lying shitbag you are.

Are you going to advocate for letting alcohol addictions run their course, if biological links are found to that behavior inclination? No more cancer treatments, boy? Just because it may be people are 'born that way?' Of course not.

Apples and oranges, since the empirically measurable harms your examples visit, not only upon those who suffer, but, in some cases, on others whose participation is less than voluntary is, in some cases, rather harrowing. But if no such harms are visited on non-consenting parties, I'm hard pressed to see why treatments of any kind should be forced on anyone who doesn't want them.

Choosing the homosexual lifestyle is the right of adults.

Given that the likely alternatives are loveless marriage or lifelong celibacy, I'd say so.

Asking that society celebrate that choice, by falsely calling a gay union marriage for example, is the act of a child.

Are you celebrating my marriage by finding it allowable under legal definition? Because I'm certainly not celebrating yours; if you are indeed married and fathering children, and if you're a fraction of the churl you appear to be, I'm fairly certain that your wife and children live as victims of unconscionable and ongoing abuse by a desperate and proudly ignorant despot. But I wouldn't imagine turning my opinion of your character into a crusade to create legislation to ensure that those I find to be irredeemable assholes cannot enter legally into contracts to build households with anyone duped enough to find them lovable.

@63: Can I just say I love how whenever Seattleblues gets into one of his moods, you're always there to do a post-mortem on his arguments? Kudos to you and your measured and articulate responses.

42/Fred, there also flaut: to roll up a flour tortilla around a filling and deep fry it..

@63

Is that my navel?

What, really, IS a navel? Is it a real physical thing because we bind it in cruel taxonometric chains? Or do the chains create reality where before was only an 'innie' or an 'outie' and therefore become the ultimate kindness- creation?

The Buddha would have contemplated this navel, if we may so term it for the sake of argument, and found that society imposes on it unnecessary restrictions. One might say indeed that it is, at the essential core of it's being-ness, the eloquently elemental reminder of mother nurture. But does it now remaining only as reminder itself negate the memory? Does the memory block our adult reality of independence from our physical mothers?

But what does the navel think and say of itself, by its' very existence? Surely this supercedes, morally and ethically, our attempts at telling others what we think it to be!

And so on. And on. And on. And interminably on.

@66: You might want check those brownies you had at lunch SB. I think there might have been more than chocolate in with the Betty Crocker....

@66: So, you don't have any answer for me? I can only assume you are unable to point out what in my chain of reasoning was inaccurate, and thus must admit that sexual orientation is a true and valid trait rooted in neurophysiology. If you disagree, please post your dissension with an explicit statement of what you think is not supported by the facts.
So far I've shown you peer-reviewed studies supporting my side, and your response has been only to say that you don't think they're right without producing any evidence whatsoever to that effect.

@67, I know, right?!