Hypocritical judgment of Kentucky county clerk


by Lars Larson

This week the eyes of the nation have been focused on Rowan County, Kentucky where a [Democratic] county clerk refused to issue gay marriage licenses.

Personally I think she’s wrong to substitute her religious beliefs for public policy. But what I find really kinda funny is the outraged cries of gay marriage fans.

You see, 11 years ago in Multnomah County those same people were cheering when four county commissioners conspired in secret to pull a similar stunt. Diane Linn, Serena Cruz, Lisa Naito and Maria Rojo de Steffy substituted their beliefs for the law and the state constitution. They ordered the County to begin issuing gay marriage licenses in violation of state law. Thousands of licenses were issued. In the end, the attorney general and the courts slapped down the outlaw commissioners.

Did the local media condemn their outrageous acts? Perish the thought.

Oregon voters then went to the polls and voted down gay marriage by a 14 percent margin.

It just seems interesting to me that when Kentucky’s Kim Davis stands on her principals she’s vilified by liberals who don’t like the result. But when the Bridal slipper is on the other foot, they’re giddy.

For my liberal progressive friends, if you want to demand the woman be fired, will you do the same when a public official does something you LIKE?

And for my conservative friends who are overjoyed by Kim Davis’ stand, will you be as happy when voters choose a Muslim Sheriff (say in Dearborn, Michigan) and he decides to start enforcing Sharia modesty rules on the local population of women?

From Black Lives Matter Marchers to Greenpeace Bridge Piñatas and now a Kentucky County Clerk…we’re less & less a nation of laws every day…and more and more a people under mob rule.

For more Lars Larson, visit Lars’ web site

  • Ardor/Odor in the Court

    Spot on!

  • GObill sizemore

    I think the point the lady in Kentucky is trying to make is that the U.S. Supreme Court, a judicial body, does not have the authority to change the laws of this nation, which is exactly what they did when they found in the U.S. Constitution a right that does not exist there – the so-called right to marry someone of your same sex.
    Having said that, there is no way for her to win this fight. The most she can gain legally is the freedom for her personally to not have to sign marriage licenses that violate her beliefs, a religious accommodation which was probably already her right. Probably.
    I get your point, Lars, and agree that all public officials have to follow the law in the conduct of their official duties. What I don’t get is why we continue to allow the courts to make up laws that they have no right to create out of thin air. Two hundred years ago the Founders were afraid they were making the judicial branch and especially the Supreme Court too weak in the balance of powers scheme they had devised. Little did they know that those unelected officials in black robes would become tyrants and overrule everyone else.
    Of course such usurpations are only possible in a practical sense when Congress is so polarized and paralyzed by partisanship and political correctness that it cannot put the Court in its place and cannot muster the votes and the political courage to place such matter as gay marriage beyond the Court’s jurisdiction, something Congress has the authority to do.

    • Eric Shierman

      The 14th Amendment was not created “out of thin air.” The ruling in Obergefell v Hodges did not create a right to same sex marriage. It only enforced our constitutional ban on state governments denying the equal protection of the law to any of its citizens.

      • GObill sizemore

        I answer your misguided remarks in my response to Eric Blair below. The equal protection clause was never intended to force states to extend rights that did not first exist under the federal constitution.

        • Eric Shierman

          Since the text of the 14th Amendment does not say that it only covers rights that “first exist under the federal constitution” on what basis do you make that claim?

        • Eric Blair

          Nor does the Constitution say anything about “equal protection of the laws”. That was added by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution is not limited to only the original text. That is why there is an amendment process.

          • GObill sizemore

            Do you not see the irony in your statement, Mr. Blair? There is an amendment process. If we are going to discard thousands of years of tradition and law and drastically change the definition of one of our most basic institutions, should it not be by means of amending our laws or constitution, not by having the change shoved down our throats by unaccountable, unelected lawyers wearing black robes – to paraphrase Chief Justice Roberts…

          • Eric Blair

            No.. I think the 14th Amendment covers it nicely The state can’t, or shouldn’t, discriminate against gay couples to make conservative Christians happy. You have a definition of marriage? Perfect. I’ll will defend your right to not get married to another man.

          • Eric Shierman

            I certainly see irony in your reply to Mr. Blair in the absence of answering my rather basic question. On what basis do you claim that “The equal protection clause was never intended to force states to extend rights that did not first exist under the federal constitution” since the amendment’s text did not get ratified with a footnote hedging its rather broad language.

            If the 14th Amendment says what an obvious reading of its text implies, then an additional amendment would not be required right?

            It’s also a bit ironic for anyone who views the Constitution as a document that limits government power to quote from John Roberts who rejects that view and, as advertised, has shown an Oliver Wendell Holmes like deference to legislatures. His legal rational for upholding Obamacare is identical to his judicial philosophy for protecting state gay marriage bans.

            Obergefell did not “discard thousands of years of tradition and law.” These state laws banning gay marriage only existed for about the average time it takes to appeal a local law to the Supreme Court. The first federal law defining marriage in a way as to exclude gay couples was passed in 1996 not 1796. Such definitions tend to come only after someone does what political majorities don’t want them to do. The point of having a written constitution is to limit what political majorities can do.

          • redbean

            Which means that government has no say in marriage.

          • Eric Shierman

            How does anything I have said imply that?

          • redbean

            I was responding to the references to the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and state laws.

          • Eric Shierman

            So you meant to say: “[The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment] means [state] government has no say in marriage.”

            The obvious response is that the opposite is the case. In Windsor v US the court ruled that regulating marriage is a power belonging to state governments, not Congress.

            The role that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment plays then, in overriding state authority, remains no different on marriage policy than it is on education policy or any other policy area, that no state shall make or enforce any law that denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

          • redbean

            No, that’s not at all what I meant to say. Why would state government have a say in marriage?

          • Eric Shierman

            States have a say in marriage because the regulation of conjugal contracts is not mentioned in Section 8 or Section 9 of the US Constitution’s first article.

            How did my interpretation of what you said depart from what you meant to convey? You claimed that something I said implied that government has no say in marriage. I asked for a clarification and you gave me a slightly less vague reply that it was because of my references to the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and state laws. How did what I had said about those three things imply that states have no say in marriage?

          • redbean

            Oh my, I do need to clarify. I wasn’t saying that you implied government has no say in marriage.

            For those who believe marriage is nothing more than a “conjugal contract,” then government is involved through its role in protecting contracts. Therefore, “marriage” as a “license” to access government benefits is indeed the business of government. I just think the more appropriate term for this is “civil union.”

          • Eric Shierman

            It seems strange for you to claim that “I wasn’t saying that you implied government has no say in marriage” when you responded to my concluding comment in my conversation with Bill Sizemore with the following: “Which means that government has no say in marriage.”

            It sounds now like you have changed your mind. If one were to use “civil union” as a synonym for marriage then we are simply on a linguistic treadmill. Everything true about government involvement in civil unions would then become true about government involvement in marriage.

            The people who debate the issue of gay marriage on both sides all probably think of marriage as more than a contract. The conflict however seems limited to the aspects of marriage where government policy has a say.

          • redbean

            Government protects private contracts by holding parties accountable for the contract’s terms, but should not be defining those terms.

            I don’t consider a civil union to be synonymous with marriage, which had been a private contract before government stepped in to regulate it, a relatively recent development.

            On the other hand, a civil union is defined by government; given the 14th Amendment arguments, I see no defense for limiting civil unions to 2 people, or to people not related by blood.

            Your concluding comment to Bill Sizemore referenced state laws banning gay marriage and noted their passage beginning in 1996 (“not 1776”). His point, which is also mine, is that marriage is not mentioned in the federal constitution. I part with him over whether the states can regulate it.

            “The point of having a written constitution is to limit what political majorities
            can do.”

            Kim Davis, an elected official of Kentucky, chose to follow the Kentucky constitution, amended in 2004 to outlaw gay marriage by a 75% majority. Kentucky’s written constitution didn’t limit the political majority, SCOTUS did by 5-4. Justice Roberts’ dissent to Obergefell said the majority’s ruling had nothing to do with the federal constitution but with achieving a (social) goal. Justice Scalia called it, “Social transformation without representation.”

          • Eric Blair

            I don’t consider a civil union to be synonymous with marriage, which had
            been a private contract before government stepped in to regulate it, a
            relatively recent development.

            Please define recent. Virgina had laws requiring a marriage license as early as 1632. There were also laws published that required certain requirements be met before couples could be married.

            Augustus implemented marriage laws that rewarded couples for having children. We have ancient Rome and colonial Virginia. Were you thinking of some period of time before Augustus, or in between Augustus and 1632?

          • redbean

            The history of marriage across cultures and centuries is not a straight line.

            From “Taking Marriage Private” by Stephanie Coontz. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

            “WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not
            the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.”

            “For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.”

            “In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.”

            “Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an
            attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed
            their match.”

            “The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.”

          • Eric Blair

            You cannot claim that governmental interest and legislation in marriage is relatively new… which is what you said. The best you can claim is that in some cases it was involved and in other cases it was not. But there has been a long involvement of government in marriage throughout history. You can dance all you want, but that is still fact. Given the central influence of Roman jurisprudence in western law, I think it is highly significant that the Romans legislated marriage.

            Given the close relationship between church and state throughout European history from the fall of Rome through the 16th and 17th centuries (if not beyond) I don’t think you can historically make the claim that government was not involved in regulating marriage to one degree or another.

          • redbean

            I thought I answered this in my post, which quoted a writer more knowledgeable than either of us. Mid-19th century is “recent” in my opinion. The church, not the state, did most of the “registering” – which is not the same as permission. My family has traced marriages back to the 1600s, when a French Canadian fur trapper near Nova Scotia married a native lady, “la sauvage.” The church, not the state, recorded this marriage and subsequent ones.

            I don’t think the comment “Given the central influence of Roman jurisprudence in western law” is sufficient evidence for how people actually lived.

          • Eric Blair

            LOL… perhaps. My experience with my own family has always made me leery of using their experiences as a guide to what happened in society in general.

            So… marriage is to be left to each individual to define? I certainly have no problem with that.

            Until sufficient legislation is either passed.. or current marriage laws are deemed unconstitutional… we will simply have to do the best we can, and ensure that state legislatures do not engage in unconstitutional restrictions.

          • Eric Blair

            Justice Scalia’s statement about, “social transformation without representatoin.” comes across of one of his more silly ones. Social transformation occurs outside of representative bodies. What we have here, the the acknowledgment that transformation has already occurred, and that being gay is one of several normative states, although not the most common. Something the psychiatric community recognized in 1973 when they removed homosexuality from the DSM.

          • redbean

            If social transformation had already occurred, it wasn’t evident at the ballot box.

          • Eric Blair

            That would be true. Consider it a last gasp as foes of gay marriage realized that they were losing the bigger battle. And social transformation certainly didn’t suddenly appear with Obergefell. That is most certainly an entirely ahistorical view, and doesn’t take into account the forces that had been in motion for a long time. Social transformation is a much longer process and ultimately is impervious to legislative or even representative action. Consider Obergefell a recognition of a social transformation that had already occurred.

          • Eric Shierman

            This conversation has progressed some while I was busy doing research for my next book today. When thinking of what I would say later tonight, I was planning on going into more detail on the history of western conjugal law, but I think that’s no longer needed. I would have shared with you some things I learned from reading Stephanie Coontz very excellent book years ago, but her nice New York Times piece will suffice. Pretty much everything she’s written undermines what you’ve said above. Read it again more carefully and then tell me what exactly she said in there that would serve as a premise to support the conclusion that in America: “government has no say in marriage.”

            Indeed, her argument for the deregulation of marriage is more extreme a position than the status quo under Obergefell. If you think that government should not be regulating what constitutes a legally valid marriage contract, then opposition to the enactment of a law banning gay marriage follows from that position.

            Let’s clarify two facts. The first state laws banning gay marriage were passed in 2004. It was DOMA, a federal law, that was passed by Congress in 1996.

            Marriage Law may be relatively recent, if you consider the 16th century recent, but civil unions are even more recent. If one is not using that term as a euphemism for marriage, it’s technical meaning emerged in the 1990s as a legal mechanism to give gay couples a separate institution that could harness some of the legal benefits of marriage. DOMA was passed in response to these domestic partnership agreements because the prevailing conservative position at the time was that civil unions were bad, because they were seen as an alternative means of granting marriage to gay couples.

            Marriage law is mentioned in the Constitution simply by being one of the many laws states legislate. Rather than list every policy area in which it applies, the 14th Amendment preceded the word “law” with the word “any.”

            Regarding the whole point of having a written constitution, John Roberts rejects that original Madisonian ideology that America’s founding generation called “republicanism.” Roberts’ judicial philosophy is to neuter the power of the US Constitution’s restraint on the political process. That’s why he saved Obamacare twice. So when folks who care about the Constitution quote from a guy that does not share the Constitutionalists’ views, it seems arbitrary that you and Sizemore would quote the likes of John Roberts only when you agree with his conclusion, but I suspect that none of us agree with the reasoning he used to get there.

            Scalia has a different vision for constitutional law. What he calls “Textualism” requires a judge to ignore his own policy preferences and merely interpret the legal implications of the text of the Constitution. In practice however, Scalia does the opposite. He ignores the text of the 14th Amendment when he does not like the policy implications of the case at hand, and he embraces the powerful language of the 14th Amendment in the very same way that Obergefell did when it steers toward the legal outcome Scalia favors, like Bush v Gore. So the very quote you cite from Scalia violates Scalian Textualism?

            And when talking about what the law is, what good is it to quote from dissenting opinions anyway? As a matter of law, Kentucky’s gay marriage ban is null and void. Being a southern state, no doubt there are many laws remaining on Kentucky’s books that have been stricken down long ago. So Kim Davis has not been following her state constitution, because her state no longer has a gay marriage ban. Her state constitution limits the majority will in many ways; one of those ways is by remaining a member of our union.

          • Conservativesareidiots

            Thousands of years of tradition? If you’re talking about marriage you need to brush up on the history of marriage. It’s ignorant fools like you that are the real problem in this country.

        • David from Mill City

          So as driving is not a explicitly spelled out right in the US Constitution a Muslim DMV clerk could cite his religion as grounds to refuse to issue driver licenses to women because driving is not a right? Are you serious? Besides missing the point of the Supreme Court ruling, it is an absurd

          The Supreme Court did not create a new right, what they did is end an illegal denial of an existing right. A right that same-sex couples have had, arguably since marriage was first codified, and definitely since the adoption of the 14th
          Amendment in 1868.

          • Rx B’gonne Isnanegents

            Bloviate Scatology wavy ‘frond’ doff DfMC, CONmission herder for what’s left beyond US instill huckstering above overt ‘Buttock in d’savor a pillar of salsa DEMentia half fast fooded at a loco recreational MJ enjoinment pallor adjunctus twit a Snope’s subborniCAVE ding batting for social NWO cesspoolism all over d’floor of Congress, Putz!

    • Write On

      Bill’s sizing up correct is right.

  • living in 2015

    Lars-a lot has changed in 11 years. You might want to move on from that 11 grudge by the way.

  • thevillageidiot

    nickles worth. the clerk in Kentucky is wrong. But at least she stands by her convictions knowing that she will pay a price. Which is more than most (90%) of the rest of us would do. Now this is a county position. all that the stupid people had to do was go to the next county get married there. done!

    • Pete

      Or they could have gone to Iraq and had the ceremony….no problem.

      • Eric Blair

        I’m not sure what you mean by the comment… because other countries treat gays worse than the United States, gays in this country should be happy with whatever they are given? If that is what you mean, that is a truly silly argument.

        • redbean

          Back in the good ‘ol days, gays knew their relationships were none of the government’s business. No government license needed or wanted.

          • Eric Blair

            You mean back when they had to keep it hidden for fear of persecution?

            There is no government license needed for couples to be together. There is, however, if the couple wishes to have certain legal advantages.

            Your comment makes no sense.

          • redbean

            Uh, no, not when their conduct was hidden, but when their spokespeople openly derided marriage as a bourgeois construct. Sometime between Stonewall and the public awareness of HIV as a lifestyle disease.

          • Eric Blair

            Ummm. all of them, or some of them? And if some of them, how many? And those that did, could it have been because gay marriage seemed an impossibility. Even after Stonewall, and until recently, many gay people had to keep their homosexuality secret for fear of losing their career or even their lives. Employment is probably safer, but there are still violent homophobes out there. And, in our secondary schools, being gay can still result in bullying and ostracization.

            What does HIV have to do with prohibiting gays from getting married? I really feel like you’re grasping at straws here. I’ve noticed that social conservatives dance all around the issue and throw up all sort of chaff to confuse the issue.

          • redbean

            “Ummm. all of them, or some of them? And if some of them, how many?”

            Perhaps the loudest gay advocates during the time in question were self appointed and didn’t represent the majority. Or perhaps they did represent the majority, whose goals have now changed from pursuing “freedom from the state” to using the state to force their view of morality on others.

            Yes, “there are still violent homophobes out there” – some of whom may be headed for our shores right now if the administration gets their way. Unfortunately, the danger is often closer to home, as the statistics on domestic abuse between same-sex couples attest. (You do know that Mathew Shepard was killed by a sex partner and fellow meth head, right?)

            Secondary schools are laboratories of social pathology where anyone who doesn’t conform to commercialized cultural norms is at risk for bullying. Your tax dollars at work. What does this have to do with marriage? Nothing. It’s just “chaff to confuse the issue.”

            I didn’t say HIV had anything to do with prohibiting gays from marrying – quite the opposite.

            I’m trying to follow the reasoning in your post: marriage has to be redefined because some people are mean to those who act on their same-sex attraction.

          • Eric Blair

            LOL.. no.. I was trying to respond to your post.. which was in itself confusing. Never follow the lost, you’ll just end up lost too. 😉

            So enough chaff.

            Gay people deserve the full protection of the constitution as straight people. State actions are limited by the 14th amendment, and the states can no longer discriminate against gay couples when it comes to marriage.

            You may wish the governmental portion of “marriage” to be called something else – civil unions. That has been tried, and has not gained traction with the public. Perhaps it will, and I hope that you will work tirelessly to change that. For my part, I think continuing to call it marriage, regardless of the cultural past, is just fine. I honestly think we’ll have more luck getting rid of the electoral college than we will changing marriage to civil union.

          • redbean

            Of course, “Gay people deserve the full protection of the constitution as straight people.”

            And so do people who believe that there is significance to being female and male. Vive le difference.

            The issue is that marriage is not a constitutional issue because it isn’t the business of government at any level, except to those who want to control others. When government interferes in cultural issues (“cult” – as in deriving from religious belief), rights will be in conflict.

            In order to maintain a pluralistic society, government needs to keep out of private matters.

          • Eric Blair

            Well.. then you should applaud the Supreme Court for taking governmental restriction out of one aspect of marriage.

            I’m not sure, anymore, what your view is since you now seem to be contradicting yourself. Perhaps at some point the Supreme Court will determine that government shouldn’t involve itself in any aspect of marriage, and throw out all marriage laws. Is that what you are aiming for?

          • redbean

            I don’t see the contradiction that you see.

            Why the need to seek governmental legitimacy for a contract between private individuals, especially one that regards the most intimate matters?

            SCOTUS didn’t take governmental restriction out of one aspect of marriage – they redefined it for 300 million people who have various viewpoints on the matter.

          • Eric Blair

            No, they didn’t. You, and everyone else, gets to define marriage in any way you please. And I’m reasonably sure you don’t talk for all 300 million people. If government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating marriage, then actually preventing individual states from limiting the definition should be a good thing. Not as far as they should go, as in striking down all state laws on marriage as being an infringement on individual liberty. But certainly a step in that direction.

            No where in that decision did SCOTUS claim that all must agree, only that they cannot impose their individual interpretations on other same-sex couples through the power of state legislatures or referendum.. They still have the freedom, and right, to marry someone of the opposite sex.

            Yes, SCOTUS did take out one restriction out of state marriage laws: the restriction of marriage to refer only to opposite sex couples. That was a state restriction, and therefore a governmental restriction.

            “Why the need to seek governmental legitimacy for a contract between
            private individuals, especially one that regards the most intimate

            Why indeed? That question pertains as much to straight couples as it does to gay couples. You do believe that state laws regulating marriage are an infringement on individual liberty should be taken off the books, yes?

          • .

            Cow semen.

    • Eric Blair

      Why should someone, who presumably pays taxes in the county, need to go to a different county to obtain a legal license? That is simply ridiculous. The county clerk needs to do her job or resign. There, done.

  • Hubbell

    To Lars Larson – GOD ALMIGHTY (whom you do not TRULY believe in, clearly) DOES NOT CONDONE HOMOSEXUALITY. Sodomy is disgusting, as is ‘evil lesbianism’. This entire “marriage debate” LEGITIMIZES ‘evil-influenced lifestyles” and makes normal people look absurd.

    Remember what GOD did to ‘ Sodom and Gomorrah’ ?

    Think about it, Mr. Larson.

    • Crew C. Fied

      Surmise, surmise, OMG, Hubbell, what are you saying or inhaling? That Lars is evil or the aberrant behavior crowd or both? Sins to say, all can be forgiven if John 3:16 can be token serially.

    • Eric Shierman

      You are making a common mistaken assumption about why, according to the Bible, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Let’s use your misreading of the Bible to test how ideologically committed you are to a political philosophy of limiting government and what exactly your normative first principles are for public policy.

      The account in Genesis does not cite a specific sin that these two cities committed that justified their destruction, but later the Bible gets specific. It’s because these cities were filled with arrogant rich folks who failed to give enough money to the poor. It’s thus a little bit strange that something so peripheral to the Bible as homosexuality gets such passionate public policy advocacy from religious conservatives, but something that gets a lot more verbiage in the Bible like condemning the rich or condemning false belief does not.

      Why accept the Lockean Liberal position of the freedom of religion or reject idea that the state should force the rich to give more to the poor, but go to the mat over gay marriage which is not even mentioned in the Bible?

      Of course I am assuming that you believe in religious freedom and the like. Do you? Or since a county clerk like Kim Davis in Kentucky spends far more time approving the transfer of property deeds than issuing marriage licenses, do you think she should also deny a Mormon church the ability to buy property for a temple in her county? Should she deny a property developer the right to a sale, because the transaction would involve the very serious sin of loving money?

      • Eric Blair


      • Eric Blair

        What if that property transfer was going to be used for immoral purposes.

      • MrBill

        I’m not sure what Bible you’re reading, but my reading is that they probably did lots of bad stuff. Lack of compassion for the poor could have been one of their sins, but the text really doesn’t go into specifics on that.

        But what brought things to a head were the men of the City wanting Lot to step aside so they could bang a couple men they believed were staying in Lot’s house. So you could include homosexuality among their many sins as well.

        KIm Hill’s rationale is pretty clear to me. She doesn’t in any way want to be party to something she believes is morally wrong. She could step down or simply not comply with the SCOTUS ruling. She chose the latter. Whether that was the right thing or not can be debated, but I understand where she’s coming from and I respect her point of view.

        • Eric Shierman

          I was raised on the RSV but now read Textus Receptus in its original language along with recent, older papri discoveries. I don’t think the issue here is what Bible I read, but rather the fact that I do so. It’s been my experience that much of what Christians think is Biblical is actually rumor.

          Check out Genesis 18:17. God had already passed judgement before the incident you’re referring to. Also, we can rule out some kind of extreme degree of homosexuality as the issue because even in the most homoerotic eras of human history such as 5th Century BC Athens, it’s not difficult to find heterosexuals who want nothing sexually to do with the same sex, and yet Abraham can’t find 50 people who are not gay? An objective interpretation of the Bible requires the reader to avoid clinging to improbable explanations.

          Also since the incident you’re referring to entails rape, there is no reason to believe that the sexual orientation of that rape was what made Sodom some kind of an extreme aberration of sin. Indeed, Sodom is mentioned many times in both the Old and New Testaments but it’s usually just said to be terribly wicked without giving a detailed explanation as to how it was any different from the rest of the sinful world. Only once does the Bible drill down into the details and homosexuality gets no mention. Go ahead and read Ezekiel 16 for the first time.

          Kim Davis has not been seeking personal workplace accommodation for her beliefs. Those were offered to her and she rejected them. She has been using the power of her position to make marriage policy for her county.

          For any serious student of the Bible, it’s hard to understand where Kim Davis is coming from. What Bible verse is making her think that she has an obligation, as a Christian, to prevent non-believers from sinning? If she’s operating under that assumption, then why hasn’t she been using the power of her position to stop sins that are more prominently and clearly condemned by the Bible than gay marriage which gets no direct mention in scripture?

          • MrBill

            Lack of compassion for the poor (as you correctly bore out in the references you cited) was one of many complaints God had against Sodom and Gomorrah, but I don’t think it stopped there. Your Ezekiel passage listed pride and haughtiness in addition. It also made reference to them committing abominations. The nature of their abominations isn’t elaborated on, but perhaps Jude 7 gives a clue. It included sexual immorality and going after strange flesh. Homosexuality was one of their many sins as well.

            Kim Davis’ actions make perfect sense to me. If you want to look at it through the lens of the Bible, it’s similar to Shadrach, Mechach, and Abednego refusing to bow to a statue of Nebuchanezzar (Daniel 3) or Peter and John’s refusal before the Sanhedrin to cease preaching Christ (Acts 4). Both these examples involve a refusal to obey the State when it’s in conflict with God’s law. God’s law trumps man’s law. Kim Davis is faced with a similar dilemma and has chosen to obedience to God over the State.

          • Eric Shierman

            By citing Jude verse 7, perhaps that shows you took some time looking up those other Biblical references and we are now in agreement that homosexuality is never cited in the text of the Bible as to why Sodom and Gomorrah were some kind of outliers of sin.

            I in no way asserted they had no gay people among them. Of course there were, as there have been in all societies, but homosexuality has always been rare, even in ancient Athens it was a sexual minority. What I was pointing out is that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that homosexuality is some kind of super sin that deserves Christians’ extra focus over others that the Bible devotes more verbiage to condemning such as the love of money and apostasy.

            How do Davis’ actions make perfect sense then? Does it make sense to use one’s position in government to regulate the culture of your county to suppress one relatively obscure sin, but ignore all the more prominent others?

            Also, none of the Biblical examples of civil disobedience you provided are analogous to her. Each are all instances where a believer is ordered personally to sin and the person disobeys. That’s not what Kim Davis has been trying to do. She rejected an accommodation that she not personally process marriage licenses. She has always had five deputies willing to do that for her. She’s trying to prevent non-Christians from sinning. That’s qualitatively a different thing.

          • MrBill

            The passages referenced make clear that homosexuality was most certainly a part of Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin, although their sins went deeper than that (as I’ve maintained from my first comment).

            Nothing that either of us has written suggested either of us believe that there were no homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorrah. Not sure what the point of that is.

            Kim Davis’ acts no doubt make no sense to you, although they make perfect sense to me. Indirect participation is still participation.

          • Eric Shierman

            Neither of the two passages referenced above “make clear that homosexuality was most certainly a part of Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin.” The one I provided is the only passage that gives a specific sin rather than a generality. How do you get a clear reference to homosexuality in Ezekiel 16? Is it the word “תוֹעֵבָ֖ה”? The Bible cites dozens of various infractions as being an abomination. Why do you arbitrarily assume it’s referring to homosexuality?

            Then there is Jude verse 7. I’m not sure what translation you were quoting from, but it looks like it was trying to be a literal one. It’s curious then that it would paraphrase the word “ἑτέρας” as “strange” rather than use its literal meaning which would be “another” or “different.” Not only is “different flesh” nonexistent in the extant Hellenistic manuscripts as a euphemism for homosexuality, it’s actually the etymological root of our word “heterosexual.” Homosexuality is having sex with something that is the same flesh as you not different. No reasonable interpretation would assert this as a reference to gay sex. It could however be a euphemism for bestiality, or if you look at the grammatical structure of verse 7 it’s referring back to the previous verse which appears to make reference to the “בְּנֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים” of Genesis 6. Perhaps the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were having sex with angels. That’s what most Bible scholars interpret Jude as saying, but why do you cling to homosexuality, which literally means the opposite of the word Jude chose to use?

            Also keep in mind that Jude is not saying why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Only Ezekiel does that. Jude merely describes a sin that they committed without weighing in on whether or not it was the material breach that made them such an outlier of sin deserving such summery punishment.

            I pointed out that there is no basis to assert there were no gays in Sodom and Gomorrah as a means of agreeing with you that it was probably one of the sins they committed. My line of reasoning is the only means of reaching that conclusion because of the absence of scripture weighing in one way or the other. But by reaching that conclusion we cannot assert that homosexuality was some kind of super sin as to make these cities one of the Bible’s favorite metaphors of the worst of the worst. Indeed for all the Bible tells us, they could have been the least gay societies in human history. The only specific sin we know that was explicitly cited is their failing to give enough to the poor.

            That irony, of the how the Bible’s specifically cited motive differs from the unstudied, popular narrative, is salient to interpreting the rationality of Kim Davis’ actions. If she believes that it’s her obligation to act, as she said, “under God’s authority,” why does she use her central role in the transfer of all manner of legal documents to block gay marriage, but not all the many other sins that the non-believers in her county commit that the power of her position gives her an opportunity to block?

            I’ve asked you this question several times and you keep ducking it. All you say is that this makes sense to you. How does arbitrarily picking one obscure sin to enforce while letting so many other more prominent sins go make sense?

          • Eric Blair

            The only way it makes sense, is that in the minds of some social conservatives it is the most egregious sin. They may deny it, but it’s a logical conclusion given the time and energy they spend denouncing homosexuality.

          • MrBill

            Ezekiel cites committing abominations as being one of Sodom and Gomorrah’s issues (along with a host of others). Jude 7 sheds light on what the abomination in mind was (sexual immorality). To figure out what that sexual immorality entailed, you need to go back to original account in Genesis which details the men of the city attempting to engage in homosexual acts with Lot’s guests.

            It’s pretty straightforward and can explained in a short paragraph. Doesn’t require the kinds of convoluted explanations you’re attempting. Sorry you’re having such a tough time figuring it out.

          • Eric Blair

            Was it the homosexual act itself… or the fact that they were apparently going to force those acts on two unwilling strangers?

          • MrBill

            Yes. Homosexuality and rape are both condemned by scripture and they guys were pursuing both.

          • Eric Shierman

            Sure popular misconceptions about the Bible are more elementary, inherently offering greater word economy, but why would someone who looks to the Bible as revealed law sacrifice precision by avoiding effort? Since so much meaning is lost in translation, it’s ironic that that too many people who thump the Bible don’t bother taking the time to read the actual Bible which was not written in English.

            The point I initially made to Hubbell above is rather straightforward: it’s a fact that the Bible never sites homosexuality as the reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were chosen for summery punishment. Though the incident in Genesis 19 also gets misread since it refers to a mob that wants to have sex with two Angels, as I said before, the presence of homosexuality in these cities is not really in question. What’s in question is what abominations Ezekiel is referring to. Nearly every sin gets called an “תוֹעֵבָ֖ה” by a Biblical author at some point. Which sin was it? The text is unclear.

            Jude offers us no indication that it was gay sex. The opposite is the case. Jude was literally talking about sex with hetero flesh, not homo flesh. Why arbitrarily assume Ezekiel refers to homosexuality without a strong scriptural basis for reaching that conclusion?

          • MrBill

            Jude says they went after strange flesh in the sense that they were departing from nature (eg man on angel, man on man, or man on beast). Leave the word dissection to the scholars who do the translations.

          • Eric Shierman

            Are you really even disputing the fact that the Bible never identifies homosexuality as the material reason for Sodom and Gomorrah’s summery destruction? You make me wonder when you still cling to a misreading of Jude. You’d be hard pressed to find a scholar that would support the idea that Jude verse 7 makes a general reference to all sex that is unnatural. The scholarly consensus is that it’s specifically referring to verse 6.

            You are not leaving “word dissection” to the scholars. You’re engaging in word dissection yourself but doing so with insufficient source material. Cherry-picking a unique translation that departs from the others by using the word “strange” does not in any way provide evidence that the Greek word heteras can reasonably be interpreted to mean its opposite. Translations remove meaning from the original text, they do not preserve it, thus the irony that too few Christians who look to the Bible as revealed law fail to concern themselves with the attention to detail that perspective would call for.

            Remember I in no way argue that Sodom and Gomorrah had no gays among them. We don’t need a misreading of Jude to establish that. You get no dispute from me that homosexuality might have been one of the abominations Ezekiel refers to. There is simply no strong scriptural basis to assume it was gay sex instead of the many other sins that are also deemed an “תוֹעֵבָ֖ה” by one of the many Bible authors. There are however reasons to find homosexuality to be less probable than economic sins for the serious student of Ezekiel who is aware of the sins that Ezekiel is most concerned with.

            The reason this is all non-trivial is that it leads to the more important question as to why American evangelicals are more obsessed with homosexuality than the Bible is but less concerned with the sins that Bible focuses more on. Why did you repeatedly duck this most relevant of questions? Ezekiel never himself refers to gay sex as an abomination, but he does identifies lenders charging interest as one. Kim Davis’ job spends more time involved in commercial contracts than conjugal contracts. Why isn’t she more famous for preventing banks from charging interest by blocking real estate transactions? Would you be as quick to celebrate her if she did so?

        • Hey MrBill, dude


        • redbean

          Very plain spoken, Mr. Bill.

          • Eric Blair

            And very wrong.

          • General So’s U pickem

            Who sins in your mantra, succorer?

      • Hubbell

        You are seeing “the trees” (your version) from THE FOREST.



        Enough with your “insipid PERCEPTIONS”. I’ve read this stuff before – again, you only see “certain ‘trees'”, and not the entire FOREST.


    • Dave Lister

      The Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is against being a homosexual. Not baking them cakes. Not granting them licenses. Not doing business with them. If you believe in the prohibition and you do not commit homosexual acts then you are in the clear with God. Anything else is bigotry.

      It is well established that rabid homophobics, like you, Hubbell, are conflicted about their own sexuality. Fred Phelps is another great example. Maybe you want to be like the fictional character in “American Beauty” who blew Kevin Spacey’s character’s brains out because it became known that he had a homosexual interest in Spacey.

      • Evil Yorkie Auntie Thesis

        Maiming that Mr. Lister would like for Hubbell to take a gurney ride along with Sho Dozono at an animal farm repository?

      • Hubbell




  • Eric Shierman

    There isn’t much comparison to be made between Multnomah County’s issuing of marriage licenses in 2004 and Kim Davis’ refusal to do so, in terms of complying with the law. The first Oregon state law to ban gay marriage was passed in response to Multnomah County’s marriage policy. There was no pre-existing Oregon law defining marriage in a way as to exclude gay couples until Measure 36 was passed later that year.

    Up to that point, state sodomy laws were the only legal barrier to same sex marriage. Those sodomy laws were struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, and Multnomah County changed its marriage policy in accordance to what was then a recent Supreme Court ruling.

    It’s a bit misleading for Lars to then say that “In the end, the attorney general and the courts slapped down the outlaw commissioners.” The opposite is the case. Judge Frank Bearden issued a 90 day injunction so that the legislature could make the housekeeping changes in Oregon law to avoid conflict-of-law cases. In Bearden’s decision, after the 90 days, if the state legislature had not made these changes, Multnomah county could resume issuing same sex marriage licenses. Both Bearden and Oregon State AG Hardy Myers wrote that they expected the Oregon Supreme Court to rule in Multnomah County’s favor, because denying gay couples the equal protection of entering into marriage contracts violated Article I. Section 20 of Oregon’s Constitution, but by the time the case got to the Oregon Supreme Court, our constitution was amended by Measure 36.

    It should then be noted that unlike Kim Davis in Kentucky, Multnomah County was hardly acting lawlessly. They changed their marriage policy out of a valid legal analysis of the implications of 2003’s Lawrence v Texas. Multnomah immediately complied with Judge Bearden’s injunction and after the passage of Measure 36, all liberal Oregon counties patiently waited the lengthy appeals process until Oregon’s new gay marriage ban was finally subjected to the strict scrutiny of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

    • Eric Blair

      Nice. And welcome back Eric. I wasn’t aware of the actual legal underpinnings of the issuing of marriage licenses in Multnomah County. LOL.. this makes Lars look even more silly. Perhaps he should do a little more research and not rely on his conservative intuition?

    • MrBill

      Marriage was implicitly defined as a man/woman relationship prior to the actions of the Multnomah County commisioners. Oregon law was phrased in terms of bride (woman) and groom (man) making marriage by definition an institution consisting of one man and one woman.

      After the Court stuck down Measure 36, the law was revised from bride and groom (man and woman) to Party A and Party B.

      • Eric Shierman

        You claim that marriage was implicitly defined as a man/woman in Oregon law but then you gave us an example that was not implicit. The meaning of the word “implicit” is not just that something might be implied. “Implicit” is the case in language where something is both implied and of absolute meaning with no qualifications or questions.

        Notice that you had to put in parenthesis the words “woman” and “man” because bride and groom are not implicit in their legal meaning. It’s for that reason that anachronistic language referring to what a man has to do to comply with the laws regulating the occupational licensing of medical doctors and the use of the word “woman” to refer to regulations of nurses are not implicit gender restrictions on those professions.

        And yet “bride” and “groom” are not even as gender specific as “man” and “woman.” At most it would simply mean that one of the gay men might have to be identified as the bride, which might actually be what happens anyway if we are to believe the Roman poet Ovid’s famous observation that “In love there are two people, one who kisses and one who receives the kiss.”

        • MrBill

          I put man and woman in parentheses around bride and groom to draw attention to the fact that the marriage, until recently, has always been defined as involving a man and woman.

          If they’re not gender specific why was bride and groom changed to Party A and B or something like that? Don’t give me this anachronistic language business. This change was made because the fundamental definition of marriage had been changed.

          • Eric Shierman

            Exactly, you needed to draw attention to your own interpretation. A legally valid definition of marriage that excludes gay couples would have had to do the same. No such law existed until Measure 36 was passed.

            The reason the language was changed was the same reason masculine nouns describing medical doctors get changed. Assumptive language is seen by some as demeaning.

            When you say “Don’t give me this anachronistic language business” you’re really just saying don’t give me this established principle of legal language business.

          • MrBill

            No such law was needed until the Multnomah Co. commissioners tried to change the definition of marriage. Measure 36 merely clarified what was assumed from the Oregon Constitution’s inception and is evidenced by the fact that the laws assumed the parties making up a marriage were a bride (woman) and groom (man).

          • Eric Shierman

            When you say “no such law was needed” you do so in the context of what you said above, about how you would like to ignore the established practice of the interpretation of legal language. The folks behind the Measure 36 Campaign knew they didn’t have that option. Their lawyers advised that if the measure did not pass, then the Oregon Supreme Court would likely rule in Multnomah County’s favor. If the legal facts were otherwise it would have been a whole lot less expensive to simply wait until December 2004 for a ruling, but they knew better.

            The first woman to practice medicine in our state did so legally despite the fact that the nouns used in the language describing how to get that medical license were all masculine. Do you really think her entry into the profession broke the law? If so, you’d be hard pressed to find a member of the Oregon Bar that would agree with you.

            In American jurisprudence, as probably every other legal system in the world, the only thing that counts as a definition, is an actual clause devoted to defining a term, and that’s exactly why so much statutory verbiage as well as the text of civil contracts are filled with boring language defining terms that seem so plain in meaning.

  • Eric Blair


    Yes, both sides will cheer their side on when they are making a stand. You can call it hypocrisy, but it is so common as to not even need comment

    I will note that there was a qualitative difference between the issuing of marriage licenses in Multnomah county: the commissioners were at least coming down on the side of more liberty and freedom whereas Ms. Davis is coming down on the side of imposing her religious beliefs on others. There is also one other significant difference. When the act of granting marriage licenses to gay couples was declared illegal, the county stopped. When Ms. Davis was told to issue licenses, she continued to withhold them.

    I’m very puzzled by your warning to your conservative friends. Why not simply point out that the people who condemned the actions of Linn, et. al., now applaud the actions of Davis? Why channel your ignorance and bigotry by making issue of something that is not a real issue, but just a conservative dog whistle? I know I answered my own question, but I’m curious what your answer would be.

    @Bill Sizmore

    The court doesn’t change the laws of the nation, but they do sit in deliberation of the constitutionality of laws. They didn’t make up a law. They determined that laws that restrict the issuing of marriage licenses to man/woman couples only is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. I’m not even sure why that is even in question. Nor did they find, or create a right to marry someone of the same sex. They found that discriminatory laws can’t pass constitutional muster. What they found was that states can’t discriminate on the basis of the sexes of the two partners. Equal protection of the laws… that is in the constitution. Check it out sometime. 😉

    • GObill sizemore

      No need to check it out, Eric. I know it as least as well as you. The problem is, the equal protection clause was not designed to redefine the institution of marriage. The fact that activist judges say that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry denies them equal protection may make same sex marriage the “law of the land,” but that does not change the fact that the equal protection clause, even viewed through the lens of the14th Amendment, was not intended to require state’s to extend rights that did not exist under the federal constitution. Liberal activist judges have simply used that clause as an excuse for their over reaching – just as they did when they found a right to privacy in the Constitution and overturned long standing state laws limiting or outlawing abortion.
      So I stand by my statement that the SCOTUS created this new found right out of thin air. Of course once one accepts the notion that the Constitution is a “living document” that need not be interpreted as its drafters intended, it is a small jump to believing, as you apparently do, Eric, that rights that never existed under the U.S. Constitution must be extended to the citizens of the states simply because a slim majority of unelected judges say so.
      Oh, and it is not just guys like me who see it this way. The four justices comprising the conservative minority said so. Even sometimes conservative Chief Justice Roberts stated unequivocally in his dissent that the right to same sex marriage the Court created is not in the Constitution.
      So maybe you should be a little less arrogant in your remarks, Eric. (1) You are not the only one who has read the Constitution, and (2) you can be in the majority and still be dead wrong.

      • Eric Blair

        Then the state can abolish all marriages since marriage, itself, is not a right? Did SCOTUS declare marriage to be a right? If they did not, then they did not declare any rights. Except the right to be treated equally under the law.

        The Rights are not limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution… the Ninth Amendment makes that clear.

        I realize that it must bother you to see people living their lives, getting married, in direct contradiction to your understand of the Bible. Gone are the good old days when you could impose your vision of Christianity on others.

        • Goad to Jail, b42latte

          Bloviate scatology: Whirling devious Blair, sales positioner foraging lout for DEMonstrating insurrection fallowing in senseless comet tailings, twit outer gallaxitry gala MarsHall Divot Appellwipe’s entrails

      • Eric Blair

        Do you believe that marriage is a benefit given by the state?

        • GObill sizemore

          Eric Blair, your arguments make a lot of sense if one accepts your basic frame of reference, which I do not. From where I sit you sound disingenuous indeed. Are you aware that in every culture in history, without regard to the religion of that culture or its view of homosexuality, marriage was viewed universally as an institution confined to relationships between people of the opposite sex. Perhaps the biology of the matter was so obvious that it never occurred to any other nation in the history of the world to expand the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex.
          I am going on vacation today so won’t be around to comment further on your sure to follow profundities. But I suggest that anyone interested in understanding why conservatives are so upset with the tyranny of the five supreme court justices please read Justice Roberts’ dissent. He does not even oppose same sex marriage in his dissent, just the unconstitutional way it was forced on us all.

          • Eric Blair

            I’ll note that you didn’t answer my question.

            Simply because bigotry and ignorance go back thousands of years, doesn’t give it a special status.

          • GObill sizemore

            Bigotry is not what liberals define it to be. Thank God for that. It is bewildering to me that you think that this one generation is wiser than all generations that have gone before it. Such a conclusion defies the basic meaning of wisdom
            Under your definition, the God of the Bible is apparently a bigot. That might be easy for you to accept, but to me it is the height of foolishness.
            If someone believes that it is right, moral, and Christian to treat gays and lesbians respectfully, are they a bigot in your eyes if they have logically concluded that it is not possible for two people of the same sex to be truly married?

          • Eric Shierman

            Bill, all your replies seem to be down here now. I’m still waiting for an answer to my question above about the 14th Amendment. And why would we reject John Robert’s judicial philosophy when he upholds Obamacare but celebrate it when he upholds gay marriage bans?

            Your invoking the “God of the Bible” raises even more questions. I don’t throw around insulting words like “bigot” but I’ve read the Bible enough to recognize it would be at variance with the Lockean Liberal principles America was founded on if we were to take as an assumption that if something is considered wrong in the text of the Bible that it should be banned by our laws.

            When our founding generation pioneered constitutionally protected religious freedom, were they wiser than any generation that preceded them? These revolutionaries swept away millennial of human tradition that saw a primary role for the state to regulate culture through an established religion and official state-appointed clergy. Just over two centuries ago America went down a new path, the path of limited-government.

            Do you embrace Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and our 1st Amendment as good policy? If you do, then why worry so much about legalized gay marriage, something peripheral to the Bible, but accept legalized apostasy, which the Bible condemns more than anything else?

          • Eric Blair

            Yes.. that is imposing your morality and your version of God on others who don’t agree. It is say that your definition of marriage is the correct an that other concepts are wrong and need to be legislated against — because of how people our, how they were created. That is bigotry.

            On this issue, this generation has it right. Whether that is wisdom or not (nice try – trying to box me in) is up to you to decide. Are we to be held captive to the past forever? Or at least until we have changed our minds for 2000 years? Seriously?

            Thanks for responding before you went on your vacation

          • redbean

            Marriage as the union of opposites isn’t about bigotry, it’s about children. The root of the word “matrimony” is the same as the root for “maternal.” It’s about the kids, not the adults.

          • Eric Blair

            No, marriage isn’t just about children. We allow infertile couples to marry. We allow couples to stay married who make a conscious decision to not have children. Your statement is factually incorrect on many levels.

            By the way, gay couples can adopt. So in those cases where a gay couple has a child, or children, it would be OK for them to get married?

          • redbean

            Adoption ties guardians to children through the legal process of adoption. Marriage is unnecessary for that legal obligation to be valid.

            Yes, we “allow” people to marry who won’t have children. Your statement arises from the view that marriage is a passport for governmental benefits. What you are describing is actually a civil union.

            I’m talking about the anthropological view. Throughout history, in most cultures, marriage was the best way humans could figure out to keep men connected to – and providing for – their children.

          • Eric Blair

            “Your statement arises from the view that marriage is a passport for governmental benefits.

            LOL.. nowhere in my statement is that even remotely implied. Now you’re just making stuff up. I do not see marriage as a passport for governmental benefits. I do see, however, marriage as conferring legal rights to spouses.

            “Throughout history, in most cultures, marriage was the best way humans
            could figure out to keep men connected to – and providing for – their

            That may have been one of the benefits of marriage, and even one of the purposes, although throughout history men have found ways to evade their responsibilities.

            The fact is, however, that marriage has never, ever, been only about children which you did heavily imply when you said it was, “.. about the kids, not the adults.”

            Marriage for love is a fairly recent development. I suppose you consider that to be passport to a governmental benefit?

            The fact is, you really have no good reason to deny marriage to gay couples. Except, perhaps, your own personal religious views. Which are commendable as a personal guide, but should not be used to dictate other definitions of marriage. Unless you’re comfortable with forcing your religion on others.

          • redbean

            LOL – I’m not creative enough to make things up. Your comment that “we allow” people to marry without intent to have children implies that someone (i.e. government) gave us permission to do so.

            Yes, “conferring legal rights” occurs with government-defined marriage (aka gmarriage). However, these same rights can be accessed through a contract that need not be limited to 2 people or to people temporarily “in love.”

            Yes, marriage for “love” is indeed a recent development – and absent in much of the world, where procreation and keeping families together is still the goal. Marriage for “love” shouldn’t require a government permission slip.

            Like marriage for “love,” gmarriage is a fairly recent development and has the unseemly pedigree of being used to prevent interracial marriage.

            Yes, men find ways to evade their responsibilities. Marriage is the way humans devised to make it harder to do so. The fact that it isn’t perfect doesn’t negate its purpose, except to utopians.

          • Eric Blair

            Of course government gives us permission in the form of a marriage license… whether that is good or bad is certainly up for debate, but is a related, but separate issue. Marriage is how we generally access those benefits, and for many, is a testament to their love and commitment – which generally seem to be elements lacking from legal contracts.

            Don’t sell yourself short. My experience with you is that you have a very fertile imagination, and are quite adept at making things up. 😉

            By the way, having government involved goes back to at least Imperial Rome, probably Repbulican Rome, and that is just a quick query.

            Here, for me, is the bottom line. There is absolutely no good reason, or a compelling reason, for the state to limit marriage (legal) to straight couples only. Get new terminology in place, then we can switch everyone over. For many, and I’m guessing for most, marriage has a broader definition than the one you use. But feel free to apply your definition to yourself, just please don’t think you should use the apparatus of the state to apply it to everyone else as well.

          • Rajneesh Emporium SickenzUS

            …like Blair and hips-swaying self-serving elves who supplicate 24/7 like bongs to heaven, viola, Marshall Applewhite and his ill fitting scandals marching to no where.

          • Omen

            Thank, not tank, God.

          • David from Mill City

            The problem with Mr. Sizemore’s argument is the culture of the society, its religious positions and even its views on homosexuality, historical or not, are not relevant to the matter at hand. To wit; that no government, federal, state or
            local may grant a right or privilege to one individual or group of individuals without granting it to all individuals, and should any
            limitations, restrictions or qualifications be placed placed on a right or privilege then all individuals are subject to them. It does not matter what the privilege or right is, be it the licensing of motor vehicle operators or doctors of medicine; speed limits; park hours or the ability to marry, if it is made available to one it must be available to all.

  • Eric Blair

    This gives a good example of how just horrid Lars has become: Dearborn, MI: Where Muslims Are… Americans”

    The part about a lack of intellectual curiosity and empathy speaks directly to Lars, and people like him.

    • Eric Shierman

      I think you’re being unfair to Lars in this case. Perhaps he’s written and broadcast such things on other occasions, but it took a fair amount of intellectual courage on his part to reduce Kim Davis’ behavior to its absurd conclusion when she’s so celebrated on most conservative blogs.

      • Eric Blair

        LOL.. I’m not as kind as you. I see it as not acknowledging the absurdity of Davis’ position as much as using it as an excuse to attack liberals. If he had a fair amount of intellectual courage, in my opinion, he wouldn’t have used it as an excuse to attack liberals and engage in anti-Muslim dog-whistling.

        • .

          Role over, FiiD’oh Blair

        • GObill sizemore

          One does not have to agree with Mrs. Davis’s stand to appreciate the courage she is displaying and to see in it the possibility that actions like hers and Judge Day’s will force further debate on the tension that exists between religious liberty and multiculturalism run amuck. That debate has only begun and will go on for a long time as LGBT militants attempt to shut down or revoke the tax exempt status of schools, universities, and churches that reject the whole gay marriage movement and the myriad of trappings that go with it.

          • Eric Blair

            Your only justification for denying same-sex marriage is based on your religious beliefs. And, sadly, it would seem that you are happy forcing others to live by your beliefs. Comes across as authoritarian don’t you think?

          • Lookout Below

            EB, DA, eek’n Dave Lister(?), ‘peer so ‘slanted’ in ‘flavor’ of homosexual, sic, [aberrant] behavior, they seem ‘controverted’ and stunk in a cesspool of foul ordinance.
            Loving is not sinning, butt sinning contrary to Mother Nature’s laudatory belongs out in the woods where bears dump and beavers dam outa sight of the naïveté not yet knowing who, what, and where to squat without clogging up proper dispensary.

          • Eric Blair

            Well… as for Mother Nature… there is a remarkable number of animals that have same-sex… well… sex. Perhaps part of your problem is your ignorance? That is something you can certainly rectify.

          • L B

            Your anal orthodoxy at the Terry Bean animal pharmacy has you now tenured as the Dean with the big brown nose who knows squat.

          • Eric Blair


  • HBguy

    Of course it turns out Diane Linn and the Mult.Co.Commissioners were right in 2004 when their legal counsel told them that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples marriage licenses. (Though the Multco coms made their decisions under the Oregon Constitution rather than the Federal Constitution)

    • Eric Blair

      I think the only problem with what was done was the secrecy and lack of public comment. Democracy is as much about process as it is about results.

    • A Sotoro & Clintoon dissemn8n

      @ HB useless guise, et al; Aperitif’s piddlin’ matter of curse attending das ‘tard der left wing harboring swilling bottoms up and ducking under hammer swings packing an upperurbutt in the predilection your heading jackasswads
      toward supplicating to the OMG’s of upper Uranus and Pluto morass.

    • Voice of Reason

      Yes, Lars missed that part.

      And he missed that the Multnomah County Commissioners were actually in policy making decisions, and weren’t disobeying a court order.

      But missing facts that contradict right-wing fantasyland is in his job description, right after making up “facts” that support right-wing fantasyland.

  • Voice of Reason

    Right wingers love to talk about “freedom,” but it turns out the only freedom they care about is the freedom to be just like them. And that’s not freedom.

    Lars likely understands the difference between actions of those in policy-making decisions, such as the Multnomah County Commissioners, and those who are not, such as Clerk Davis.

    But he also understands that his audience doesn’t understand that difference, and he hates to miss an opportunity to play the demagogue.

  • Happycrank

    I’ll do this one in bullet points, for clarity.

    – My same-sex partner of five years and I were married on July 4th, in Oregon. I really don’t care whether or not anyone else approves. The law’s on our side now, regardless of what the Kentucky clerk or Oregon “conservatives” say.

    – I think the “Black Lives Matter” movement is a joke, along with Greenpeace and the Sharia Law “example.”

    – Learn how to spell “principles.”

    – Even Fox News is against you. Give it up. You lost.

    – Those who rail against the Supreme Court decision having “invented new rights” need to have a peek at the 9th amendment.

    – Are the Republicans even interesting in winning statewide elections in Oregon?

    • Eric Blair

      I’ll answer your last question: Yes, but voter suppression appears to be the only viable option left.

      • Rawky Marciano Fandangle

        Viable, pliable or soluble..monsieur feigning as a heavy weight in a Cassius Claypool?

      • Happycrank

        Kinda hard to suppress votes in a mail-in state.

    • Generic So’s Reckon

      Do you see Dem fund raiser Terry Bean as obscene or don’t give a squat so long as you and your partner are no where in smelling distance of this horse’s ass paddock?
      Love the one your with but don’t screw around with the rest of US!

      • Happycrank

        Irrelevant in this discussion.

        • MacDonald O’day Coming

          “Klaato verada nikto” revises your analogy, Harpy Schlemiel Crank in perverse, shill grim.