Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[Potoooooooo]

Some pics of her supporters

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 3936

You beat me to it, although I had an article rather than a picture.

 

[blastula]

A bit uneven and heavy on the allcaps, but not bad...

https://twitter.com/nexttokimdavis


Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis Sep 1 FYI #KimDavis pulled this same damn shit when someone tried to take the Foreman Grill during the Yankee Gift Swap.

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis Sep 2
Here's something I've never had to say to the ENTIRE FUCKING USA. See you at work tomorrow! #KimDavis

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis Sep 2
If #KimDavis does go to jail, I'm giving marriage licenses to FUCKING EVERYONE. "MEN WILL MARRY DOGS" BC OF YOU, KIM. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis Sep 2
#KimDavis lawyers from @libertycounsel ARE DRINKING MY DIET MOUNTAIN DEWS. I BRING THAT SHIT FROM HOME

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis 23h23 hours ago
#KimDavis - DID GOD ORDER YOU NOT TO REFILL THE XEROX TRAY, TOO? GODDAMN IT SOME OF US ARE TRYING TO GO HOME TO OUR FIRST HUSBAND

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis 5h5 hours ago
COME ON DOWN TO THE ROWAN COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE AND ILL MARRY A FUCKING CHAIR TO A TIGER. #KimDavis

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I take it the Fred Phelps people are all over this one? He died, but I'm sure this rose him from the grave.

 

[credoconsolans]

View attachment 3936

I have someone arguing that because the marriages were all PRIOR to her becoming 'born again', they don't count as marriages.

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[credoconsolans]

When this first occurred we had people saying there was no way to get her out of there. It looked like contempt of court worked pretty well getting her ass in the pokey where these religious clowns belong.

But she still holds the office. If she's let out of jail, she can go right back to what she's been doing.

She could 'promise' to do her job, but i'm sure her legal council will come up with some argument to justify her continuing 'the good fight.'

The only way to get her out of the office would be for her to be impeached, which will have to wait for the legislature to be in session again, and would require that the politicians involved feel like forcing her to obey the law

Exactly. An apparently impeachment proceedings require a vote and one article says it's unlikely those seeking to impeach her would get a sufficient number votes from the Kentucky legislature to do so.

So yes, this could turn into a revolving door of her lying to get out, going back on her word - hey, she lied on her oath, why not her promise to a judge? - and her lawyers filing motion after motion to keep her out. In the meantime, still an elected official, she goes back to what she WASN'T doing before.

Leaving the clerks there who WILL issue licenses won't work because she's already said she will "interfere" with them doing that out of her office.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A bit uneven and heavy on the allcaps, but not bad...

https://twitter.com/nexttokimdavis


Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis Sep 1 FYI #KimDavis pulled this same damn shit when someone tried to take the Foreman Grill during the Yankee Gift Swap.

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis Sep 2
Here's something I've never had to say to the ENTIRE FUCKING USA. See you at work tomorrow! #KimDavis

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis Sep 2
If #KimDavis does go to jail, I'm giving marriage licenses to FUCKING EVERYONE. "MEN WILL MARRY DOGS" BC OF YOU, KIM. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis Sep 2
#KimDavis lawyers from @libertycounsel ARE DRINKING MY DIET MOUNTAIN DEWS. I BRING THAT SHIT FROM HOME

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis 23h23 hours ago
#KimDavis - DID GOD ORDER YOU NOT TO REFILL THE XEROX TRAY, TOO? GODDAMN IT SOME OF US ARE TRYING TO GO HOME TO OUR FIRST HUSBAND

Sitnexto Kim Davis ‏@nexttokimdavis 5h5 hours ago
COME ON DOWN TO THE ROWAN COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE AND ILL MARRY A FUCKING CHAIR TO A TIGER. #KimDavis

She is the best person in the entire history of forever. I love her.

 

[Brian63]

Referring to Davis's history of multiple marriages herself---

I have someone arguing that because the marriages were all PRIOR to her becoming 'born again', they don't count as marriages.

:laughing-smiley-014

I am definitely not defending that particular point by your debater, that they "don't count as marriages," but in Davis's defense I would agree that she is not being hypocritical herself just because she has been married multiple times. In her life, she was not a Christian during those prior marriages and so it does not really matter if her behavior back then is consistent or inconsistent with her current Christian views. They are referring to different times in life when she had different attitudes, ethics, and worldviews. They were very different, but we are going too far if we attach the label "hypocritical" to her, at least for this one specific issue. She has ample attitudes and behaviors that are legitimate for us to criticize in which she is engaged, but I just do not think this one particular issue of her former marriages is one of them.

Brian

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Referring to Davis's history of multiple marriages herself---

I have someone arguing that because the marriages were all PRIOR to her becoming 'born again', they don't count as marriages.

:laughing-smiley-014

I am definitely not defending that particular point by your debater, that they "don't count as marriages," but in Davis's defense I would agree that she is not being hypocritical herself just because she has been married multiple times. In her life, she was not a Christian during those prior marriages and so it does not really matter if her behavior back then is consistent or inconsistent with her current Christian views. They are referring to different times in life when she had different attitudes, ethics, and worldviews. They were very different, but we are going too far if we attach the label "hypocritical" to her, at least for this one specific issue. She has ample attitudes and behaviors that are legitimate for us to criticize in which she is engaged, but I just do not think this one particular issue of her former marriages is one of them.

Brian

In her eyes, she may pure as the driven snow. My eyes don't see her that way. And my nose says something about this WHOLE AFFAIR stinks.

 

[James Brown]

In her eyes, she may pure as the driven snow. My eyes don't see her that way. And my nose says something about this WHOLE AFFAIR stinks.

Agreed. She's a suicide bomber in the Religious Right's culture war.

 

[bilby]

This certainly highlights the idiocy of a system where public servants, and not just the top-tier holders of executive or legislative power, are elected.

Of course, there is always the argument that elected positions prevent nepotism or the establishment of dynasties. Just ask the Kennedys. Or the Bushes. Or the Clintons. Or the daughter of the former Kentucky Clerk who is currently in jail for contempt of court.

In the developed world, a civil servant who refuses to work is fired, and replaced by someone who wants to do the job.

 

[blastula]

This certainly highlights the idiocy of a system where public servants, and not just the top-tier holders of executive or legislative power, are elected.

Of course, there is always the argument that elected positions prevent nepotism or the establishment of dynasties. Just ask the Kennedys. Or the Bushes. Or the Clintons. Or the daughter of the former Kentucky Clerk who is currently in jail for contempt of court.

Or Kim Davis, who succeeded her mother as clerk after 37 years.

 

[blastula]

Referring to Davis's history of multiple marriages herself---

I have someone arguing that because the marriages were all PRIOR to her becoming 'born again', they don't count as marriages.

:laughing-smiley-014

I am definitely not defending that particular point by your debater, that they "don't count as marriages," but in Davis's defense I would agree that she is not being hypocritical herself just because she has been married multiple times. In her life, she was not a Christian during those prior marriages and so it does not really matter if her behavior back then is consistent or inconsistent with her current Christian views. They are referring to different times in life when she had different attitudes, ethics, and worldviews. They were very different, but we are going too far if we attach the label "hypocritical" to her, at least for this one specific issue. She has ample attitudes and behaviors that are legitimate for us to criticize in which she is engaged, but I just do not think this one particular issue of her former marriages is one of them.

Brian

Was she an atheist back then?

 

[Keith&Co.]

She has ample attitudes and behaviors that are legitimate for us to criticize in which she is engaged, but I just do not think this one particular issue of her former marriages is one of them.

So, when she WASN'T a christain, did any Christain refuse her service because their faith didn't support divorce? Or adultery? Or for any other reason used their religion as a club to infringe her rights?

She has spent her time enjoying a number of things that someone is going to take offense at, based on their religion. Would she, as a Christain, as a non-christain, or as a christain-of-a-different-sect have allowed anyone to deny her based on their interpretation of God's word? I think her former marriages should count towards the condemnation heaped upon her now, if only because no one tried to use their religious beliefs, then, to curb her behavior, so where does she get off holding others accountable for things she NOW feels are sins?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

She has ample attitudes and behaviors that are legitimate for us to criticize in which she is engaged, but I just do not think this one particular issue of her former marriages is one of them.

So, when she WASN'T a christain, did any Christain refuse her service because their faith didn't support divorce? Or adultery? Or for any other reason used their religion as a club to infringe her rights?

She has spent her time enjoying a number of things that someone is going to take offense at, based on their religion. Would she, as a Christain, as a non-christain, or as a christain-of-a-different-sect have allowed anyone to deny her based on their interpretation of God's word? I think her former marriages should count towards the condemnation heaped upon her now, if only because no one tried to use their religious beliefs, then, to curb her behavior, so where does she get off holding others accountable for things she NOW feels are sins?

OH PLEASE!

I will bet dollars to doughnuts that if at any time during marriage 1, 2, or 3 had you asked her if she was a christian, she would have said yes. This is all bullshit.

The good thing is, this episode may bring someone to the salvation of sanity and out of the sin of sanctimony.

 

[Brian63]

Just to be clear, I am not defending her position either on gay marriage or defending her actions in regards to marriage licenses (in not issuing them). She is massively abusing her own power by doing not the job that people elected her to do and that the law requires her to do (instead of simply resigning the job).

She has ample attitudes and behaviors that are legitimate for us to criticize in which she is engaged, but I just do not think this one particular issue of her former marriages is one of them.

So, when she WASN'T a christain, did any Christain refuse her service because their faith didn't support divorce? Or adultery? Or for any other reason used their religion as a club to infringe her rights?

I do not know. Supposing something like that did happen to her back then and she still feels cheated today by it, even though she does the same thing, then that would be an extremely hypocritical act on her part. Since I do not know if that did indeed ever happen to her, or what her reaction then and now is to it (maybe she changed her views on the matter, and would disagree with her older self even), I just cannot say.

She has spent her time enjoying a number of things that someone is going to take offense at, based on their religion. Would she, as a Christain, as a non-christain, or as a christain-of-a-different-sect have allowed anyone to deny her based on their interpretation of God's word? I think her former marriages should count towards the condemnation heaped upon her now, if only because no one tried to use their religious beliefs, then, to curb her behavior, so where does she get off holding others accountable for things she NOW feels are sins?

I agree that she is lucky to have not been in that position back then of having others enforce their religious views on her. It would indeed be a matter of hypocrisy on her part, if she presently enforced her religious views on others, while likewise not having the religious views of others enforced on her. So my argument here is not that she is not being hypocritical. Indeed, I think she is very much so. I am just saying that we do not have enough info ourselves to know if she is being hypocritical on this one particular issue, and maybe she completely changed her own view on this subject between her previous wedding legalizations and what she thinks now.

If supposing that she was not a born-again Christian back then, during her previous marriages, then I just do not think it makes sense for other people to criticize her for her behavior back then. Maybe she now opposes those views that she currently held, even. She can only affect her current behaviors and acts though, not her former ones that she used to hold. It just would not make sense for us to criticize her for the latter.

Sorry if this post is a little confusing. The issue admittedly is a bit tricky to grasp, especially since we do not know a lot of the details of her previous views. We are speaking in a lot of hypotheticals here.

Brian

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sorry if this post is a little confusing. The issue admittedly is a bit tricky to grasp, especially since we do not know a lot of the details of her previous views. We are speaking in a lot of hypotheticals here.

No, you're pretty clear.

And, to be clear, I'm not criticizing her past behavior. I'm criticizing her current behavior in light of her past.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm not thinking there will be any book deal. She might get some GoFundy money, but basically it sounds like she is an gross person to begin with. This is her 15 minutes.

 

[scombrid]

I will bet dollars to doughnuts that if at any time during marriage 1, 2, or 3 had you asked her if she was a christian, she would have said yes.

Oh but she wasn't a True Christian^tm then.

She became a True Christian^tm when she changed flavors.

Keith's point stands regardless of her previous religion. It seems totally lost on her and her supporters that the power of the state was not used to force her to comply with any religious matrimonial rules back when she was a "heathen".

 

[marc]

I'm not thinking there will be ant book deal. She might get some GoFundy money, but basically it sounds like she is an gross person to begin with. This is her 15 minutes.

GoFundMe has decided to not allow fundraising for discrimination cases, so she is out of luck there. Of course the first few hits when searching for "GoFundMe new policy" were for articles accusing the site of having an anti-christian bias.