This is irrelevant. Her sin is not in the past. It is in the present, with her current (false) husband. Her first husband is the only valid marriage under scripture. Therefore every night she is with another man is adultery. So being in jail is the only thing that keeps her from breaking a commandment .

If she were a repentant Christian, she would return immediately to her first husband and ask his forgiveness.

@2 amen. My mythology is the correct one and the rest of you will go to hell (facepalm).

If she was a Pastafarian we wouldn't have this shit going on.

You may also want to highlight the fact that Apostolic Christians believe in faith healing, speaking in tongues, and miracles. They are what used to be known as "holy rollers", but could be more accurately described as "white people playing black church".

maybe she was a "nominal" Baptist.

when will we be done picking on this stupid bigot? she's already in jail over this.

Dan, Dan, Dan. Once again you demonstrate your misunderstanding of religious liberty. The 1st Amendment was intended to prevent the kind of religious persecution that took place in Europe. You know, where the "real Christians" (whichever denomination happened to be "real" in that given country at that time) burnt the "heretics" (again, this varied depending on time and place) who dared to call themselves "Christians." You obviously fail to understand that Baptists are HERETICS, not REAL CHRISTIANS. So, because of our proud tradition of religious liberty, Kim Davis will refrain from burning Baptists, Catholics, and other heretics at the stake for their abomination before God.

Davis, if we're to believe her, became "born-again" about four years ago and her past immoral behavior stopped. She, like most Americans, was a nominal Christian prior to her conversion. She also was forgiven for all those sins (based on Christian doctrine regarding being born-again, some mainline churches call it "renewal"). What's apparent with this situation is how she's kept her cool, behaved politely to that screaming/raging gay couple (they made fools of themselves and do not help their political cause).

Dan, this line of argument is a complete waste of time. You should be focusing on the current, active hypocrisy of a woman who would deny gay couples the right to marry, but grants divorces despite what Jesus is recorded in Matthew as saying - that divorce is allowed only in the case of adultery. Does she investigate each couple that applies for a divorce to find out why they're divorcing and whether that would be acceptable to her lord and savior? It's even the same freakin' form that they have to fill out: https://www.ecclix.com/pdf/marriagedivor…

@9 - See, the thing is, we can't know what goes on in her head. We also can't say exactly what the difference between a "nominal" and "born-again" Christian is. We can't even say for sure what "sins" of hers were "forgiven" by Christ or God or whatever, or what that even means.

I agree she appears calm. I fail to see the significance of that, however. If that gay couple was upset, frankly I don't blame them.

Southern Baptists will tell you Catholics and Mormons aren't Christian, but American Baptists tend to like everybody. Catholics have tended to stay away from that sort of thing since Vatican II, and the Mormons just don't go there (at least in public). It's all just a crazy game.

@12 - Having been raised Catholic but with an American Baptist father (he played along),
I can attest to that. But really—this is America, where Christian is whatever a person says it is and no aspect of their behavior ever seems to disqualify them, at least not for long.

Every second we waste talking about or writing about or wringing our hands about or trying to discredit this eminently forgettable waste of DNA is another second that the poor deluded dear thinks she somehow matters. Don't feed her delusion--that's not nice. As Nick Lowe observed, sometimes you have to be Cruel To Be Kind.

The broad-brushing of 'Baptist' is over-reach and railing on her hypocrisy feels like dead-horse beating--though entertaining! That said, Dan makes an interesting point about "Who's a real Christian?" which is similar to "Who's a real Republican?" The 'real', suggested in either case, is the more extreme, less tolerant and more vicious. It is an easy walk back to our savage past because many (European settlers of the new world) never left it.

Everyone needs to keep this in mind every time any politician uses the word "Christian". As in "this is a Christian nation" or "war against Christianity" or "we believe that government should follow Christian beliefs".

When they say that, they mean *their* brand of Christianity. And *only* their brand. Suggest to any Baptist that the official state religion be Catholicism and watch their head spin around on their neck and start spitting fire like a sprinkler. In politics, they only ever use this term to exploit the support of other brands of Christians, for the day they get to put their own brand in charge.

While I do think that she is a hypocritical bigoted piece of shit, I don't think her religious past is relevant (and it pains me to agree with her POS attorney). More than anything, this whole ordeal is a nice reflection of how fucked up religion is.

Here's the thing about religion: you're not born of it. True, most follow their family's path; but you can lose religion, find it, and lose it again. Some like to sin Monday through Saturday, get saved on Sunday, and then repeat the process all over.

You can change faiths, combine faiths, or make up whole new ones (hello flying spaghetti monster). Some are Cheasters (or in my case rosh-kippur-over), and some are twice a week church diehards...and under our laws, they all get the same protection. There is no test at the DMV to prove your faith bona fides (nor should there be).

So anyway, I don't think Kim Davis's past is necessarily relevant. Maybe she really was "saved," and her current beliefs are sincere (albeit still hypocritical for a number of reasons...and I agree that there's a strong likelihood she's in this for the cash). However, this whole mess demonstrates perfectly why government and religion can't mix. The two will always, by necessity, be at odds...and if you can't except that conundrum, then don't work in the public sector.

"[Her] conversion to Christianity about four years ago wiped her slate clean"

SWEEEET deal!

come on haters christianity is great! where else can you rape and murder a baby, ask god for forgiveness, be forgiven and the only one going to hell is the baby who didn't ask forgiveness!! bam! best religion ever! i'm going to break into somebody's house and steal their TV and sell it for meth. i'll ask for forgiveness tomorrow though so it's cool.

Every time we talk about Kim Davis...an angel loses its wings.

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Regardless of what she was before, the fact is she married a guy and now she is screwing a different guy. Despite her "conversion" she is still, according to the bible, committing adultery. Until she returns to her first husband she is an adulterer living in sin. And a hypocrite.

Like a dog with a bone, Dan. Good.
She is now yesterday's news. Bye honey.

I'm not even remotely Christian, but I get the Renewal thing. A belief system that allows for a ritual of forgiveness and reformation can be a powerful and psychologically real and healing thing, aiding one in making changes and moving forward in life.

It's just a damned shame that so many of these folks grab the Get Out of Jail Free Card without even a whiff of the humility and compassion that such an experience should engender.

@23: If I may wax theological, I think the problem lies with the Crucifixion. The idea that someone ELSE's sacrifice can atone for one's sins sits uneasy with me. Kings and queens used to cast aside every luxury they owned, don sackcloth, and sit in ashes in repentant contemplation; now we have a grade of pious who wave their hands, ask Jesus to forgive them, and no longer carry the psychological burden. The easier it is to be forgiven, the easier it is to sin.

For those modestly interested in not solely making fun of her, Kim Davis is what is known as a High Conflict Personality. Bill Eddy writes about them, and also opines that their numbers are increasing. They are wreaking havoc in society because people sit around and attempt to discuss their behavior from some rational, superficial perspective. But that won't work, because at some level, they aren't right in their noggin. If we could recognize that, the appropriate response (firing her, and then having pity on her because at the present time they can't be treated) might be executed.

Too bad her mother didn't deny her a couple of adulterous marriage licenses when her mother was the clerk. Then maybe she'd have a better idea of what it's like to be humiliated in public by a petty officious jerk.

Is being "Born Again" sort of like that Kids in the Hall sketch where Kevin says that he can quit heroin any time he wants--in fact, he already quit it three times this week?

I hate to say it, but she may technically be in the clear with her current marriage...

If "sexual immorality" is a valid reason for divorce and she was preggers with Hubby #3's babies while married to Hubby #1, he had every right to divorce her. That would make Hubby #2 the current legit hubby and I believe I've read that Hubby #4 is actually the same man as Hubby #2.

So while her relations, both pre and post marriage, with Hubby #3 were obviously adulterous, I think at this point she's totes clear in the eyes of The Lord.

Or whatever.

She is still in her non-Jesus-y marriage, also, which according to Jesus is adultery. I don't actually give a shit who she adults, just pointing out that the "but now she's saved!" excuse doesn't fly either. She's still doing the no-no.

Alte goyim! Here are a few things this agnostic Jew doesn't understand. The professional Christians will claim that you can pray and be forgiven for your sins, right? I mean, doesn't Josh Duggar claim he was forgiven for molesting his sisters and cheating on his wife? Don't they love to play the Jesus Mulligan card when they get caught in a bit of hypocrisy? Presumably Kim Davis believes she's forgiven for her past adultery and her divorces. If that's the case, presumably Jesus will also forgive her for issuing marriage licenses or it's what he meant when he said to render unto Caesar.

The simple fact is - you can't argue with those people. Because they start with the premise that they are right and that we all as outsiders cannot present any information that will change that point of view. So everything contrary to their opinion is shunted of to the "devil talk" pile.

The point isn't Kim Davis' behavior in relation to her faith. It's her behavior in relation to whomever issued the divorce papers for her multiple. The equivalency would have been a government lackey (like Kim) refusing to process Kim's divorce papers based on the government lackey's religious convictions which, coincidently, happen to be the rules of Kim Davis' faith. But, yes, Kim Davis is a hypocritical oaf.

Moreover, her oath of office required her to SWEAR TO GOD that she would perform her duties of office. She his currently breaking that promise to god (a type of promise she never seems to have paid attention to in the past...).

According to the New Testament, the act of adultery in her case isn't the remarriage (which is a lot of fundy bapticostals feel they can "wash under the blood") ... its the continued sexual congress with the man that isn't her living first husband. She didn't used to have an adulterous lifestyle before "becoming a Christian," she continues to commit adultery every time her hillbilly husband closes the bedroom in their double-wide trailer.

Since she likes to name-call and pass judgement, Dan ... let's stop calling her by her government name, and start referring to her righteously and factually: the adulteress, Kim Davis.

Hey Dan, How about if we all agree to stop talking about She Who Is Not To be Named and instead start talking about James Yates and William Smith, the real stars of the Kentucky marriage story. Wouldn't it be great to do a big story about them? Say in a nationally syndicated alternative paper? Hint Hint.

@14 nocutename: Agreed. I couldn't have said it better, after learning from past experiences involving my oldest sister and ex that gaining and manipulating a vulnerable audience is exactly what delusional grandstanding bullies so desperately live for. Walk away and it's amazing how quickly they shut up and move on.
@37 DrMoth: I second that! Congratulations to James Yates and William Smith, and all the best.
Dan, how about a feature article happily celebrating James and William's legal nuptials?

Just because she was married in Baptist churches by Baptist ministers doesn't mean she actually believed in Christianity. Lots of people get married in churches just to seem respectable, even when they have no actual connection with the church. If our only proof of her previous Christianity is marriage licenses, that doesn't really meet the burden of proof.

@16:

It's like the classic Emo Phillips joke:

"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off."

She's no true Scotsman, either.

I've had the pleasure of hearing a Christian denounce Unitarians as non-Christian, then claim Isaac Newton and John Adams for 'Christians'.

And:
@19: Infant damnation is such an astonishingly rational and repellant consequence of the axioms of [some forms of] Christianity it deserves a statue, presumably in the middle of the city of St Augustine.

I really don't care how many times Ms Davis was married or who fathered her children. When we get into this type of speculation about her personal life and if she or is not is not a hypocrite we are saying in a sense that if she lived as a "real" Christian then her actions might have some justification, ie she would earn the right to discriminate if she lived by the bible. This is not about her personal life. She is in contempt, is defying the Supreme Court ruling, is discriminating and all these things put her outside the law. She should be jailed, fined and fired. As far as her personal life is concerned, let her do who she wants, however many times she wants and I for one have better things to do than to count!

Davis' hair and clothes. She really could have used a few more gay friends.

Focus people. The issue is not and never has been her religion,or sex life, or personal life. It is her failure as an elected official to do her job. She does not agree with a court ruling as a public official she is free to appeal, which she did and was overruled. That should have ended it, her legitimate choices are to follow the court order or resign. What she is doing is throwing a temper tantrum.

@44:

True enough, and the judge is giving her a nice, long, and - one hopes - financially punitive time out.