Ky Clerk Jailed for refusing to issue marriage license to LGBT couples.

[GuitarStv]

I wish Jesus would return so all these "Conservative Christians" could take note that his first stop was not the Vatican or Lakewood (Mega)Church in Houston but a gay bar off the Vegas strip where his first act was to cure transvestite prostitutes of their herpes (without a co-pay).

this would be good but I'd prefer the Rapture to come and take all the good people away so the rest of us evil ones left behind can get on with with our lives without having everything grind to a halt because some right wing Christian doesn't like the law of the land.  Think of how pleasant that would be, no Westboros at funerals, no Pat Robertson blaming the gays for the stock market decline, ahhhhh.

You're assuming the extremist Christian groups would be taken by the rapture.

[FLA]

You're assuming the extremist Christian groups would be taken by the rapture.

did you really have to burst my bubble?? They said they'd be taken, no backsies

[Gin1984]

You're assuming the extremist Christian groups would be taken by the rapture.

did you really have to burst my bubble?? They said they'd be taken, no backsies

LOL. 

[GuitarStv]

My current theory is that the rapture already happened years ago.

[MoonShadow]

Love wins

Really? Is that what happened?  A woman gets put in prison, not for doing harm to another human being, but for voicing her religious beliefs?  I live here, you guys do know that anyone who wanted to get a marriage license could have just driven 15 miles to the next county over, right?  The marriage license is a state issue, not a county issue; but county clerks represent the state within the county.  No one was actually denied anything here, it was political theater.  This case is going back the Supreme Court, and I suspect quickly.  The very fact that she is in jail, without conviction of an actual crime, automaticly gives her case impetus.  The lawyer for the plaintiffs specificly said she didn't want jail, because it would make her a "martyr".  She was right.  The only people who will win are the lawyers, so the only "love" winning here will be the love of money.

You're defending Kim Davis and suggesting that no one was denied their rights. OK.

Everybody, can we just ignore MoonShadow? Like, let's just not respond to him on any thread. Eventually he'll have to get bored and leave us alone so we can talk about VTSAX in peace.

I'm not defending anyone.  She is in jail because that is where she wanted to be.  It was a necessary step in her agenda.  My point here is that you are all being manipulated.  And she wasn't put in jail for causing harm, whether you believe that a denial is harm or not, she was put in jail for refusing a court order.  She has not been convicted of anything.

[GuitarStv]

A woman gets put in prison, not for doing harm to another human being, but for voicing her religious beliefs

And she wasn't put in jail for causing harm, whether you believe that a denial is harm or not, she was put in jail for refusing a court order.

I'm glad that you have seen the error of your original comment and are now backtracking.  She is in jail for refusing a court order, not for voicing her religious beliefs as claimed.

No one was actually denied anything here.

This is also demonstrably false.  The woman in jail denied a marriage license to gay couples.

[forummm]

No one was actually denied anything here.

This is also demonstrably false.  The woman in jail denied a marriage license to gay couples.

And straight ones too.

[Jakejake]

Is she still getting her paycheck while sitting in jail?

[Gin1984]

Is she still getting her paycheck while sitting in jail?

Likely, she has not recalled.

[Proud Foot]

She is ridiculous.  She is an official for the Government and as such is required to uphold the law. If this conflicts with her beliefs then she needs to step down.  Now I do not know all the legal history regarding the 10th Amendment but to me, it seems like a more logical defense for her refusal to issue marriage licenses.

[MoonShadow]

She is ridiculous.  She is an official for the Government and as such is required to uphold the law. If this conflicts with her beliefs then she needs to step down.  Now I do not know all the legal history regarding the 10th Amendment but to me, it seems like a more logical defense for her refusal to issue marriage licenses.

Perhaps you just made a prediction.  The problem with her making this argument right now is that the 10th amendment supports the rights of the state itself.  As an employee of the state, she can't really claim this one unless the state government is on her side, which it is not.  However, that might suddenly change soon...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/01/kentucky-governor-race-gay-marriage-licenses/71544968/

And regardless of how you might feel about him, he is quite popular around here. 

[MoonShadow]

Is she still getting her paycheck while sitting in jail?

Likely, she has not recalled.

This does not parse.  If you are suggesting that she is subject to a recall vote, she is not.  Kentucky does not have recall.  I don't know if she is still getting her salary, but there have been cases of officials getting jailed before and still getting their salary; so maybe.

[sheepstache]

I consider myself a liberal, but more and more I'm disturbed by the level of discourse descended to by people on the left and this is the latest example. Can you imagine the outrage if a controversial liberal female were called bitch and cunt or had her past sexual history dragged out into the open or jokes made about her appearance which I see on comments all over this issue.

And I don't like the arguments that slam her down for acting on her convictions. You can argue that she's doing it for publicity, not convictions, yes, or that her convictions are wrong, yes, but I don't get the sudden support for just mindlessly doing what your employer tells you.

There was a meme going around saying that supporting Kim Davis was like supporting a quaker clerk who wouldn't issue gun permits because it was against their religion. And yet somehow I'm sure that you could find plenty of support among my acquaintances for such a quaker.  History doesn't condemn those who helped the Underground Railroad in violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Or people who dodged the draft for moral reasons. Most people who know of him think Chiune Sugihara, the Japanese ambassador who issued tons of visas for Jews looking to escape Hitler's Germany (edited: Lithuania) despite the circumstances being contrary to his government's procedure, is a hero.  Liberals didn't have terrible things to say about Gavin Newsom and the officials of San Francisco for granting same-sex marriage certificates in 2004 despite the fact that it appeared to be in violation of state law. No one would be telling these people to sit down and shut up if they don't like that their job requires them to do immoral things. Saying people should simply carry out the government's orders without question strikes me as an argument of convenience.

I guess what I'm saying here is you can judge her actions as being immoral and you don't need a legalistic argument for why. I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion in my circles, but there's right and wrong and you know wrong when you see it. i guess...I feel like I'm not saying this very well, I mean, it is great to apply rational thought to your convictions, but people appear to be using a bunch of rational-sounding buzzwords as window-dressing for an argument that boils down to a moral conviction but they're afraid to say it.

[Cathy]

...Now I do not know all the legal history regarding the 10th Amendment but to me, it seems like a more logical defense for her refusal to issue marriage licenses.

You are right that this is a better basis for a possible argument. In general in the United States, the federal government cannot commandeer state officials to implement federal programs (which is why the City and County of San Fransisco is not breaking any law, despite the claims earlier in the thread).

The difference is that under Obergefell and earlier precedent, "the right to marry" is itself a freestanding constitutional right protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Obergefell (slip op, p 14). In other words, the law in the US is not just that a state cannot discriminate on the basis of gender in sanctioning marriages, but actually that a state cannot remove itself from the marriage business because there is a freestanding constitutional right to marriage. Since the US constitution apparently specifically requires states to sanction marriages, the 10th amendment cannot derogate from that requirement.

Also, in the Davis case, the Court framed its injunction as merely being prohibitory in nature (restraining the clerk from refusing to grant licences); however, that technical nicety probably wouldn't get around the constitutional issue itself if it weren't for the other argument.

[Seppia]

If we start to go down this road, where does that end?

Imagine a Muslim who claims his religion doesn't allow him/her to issue marriage certificates to non-Muslims.

How would anybody in America support that?
Yet it's exactly the same scenario.

One can be personally for or against gay marriage, as one can think 21 years of age minimum to be allowed to drink is a good or bad thing.
Regardless of that, the U.S. law says gay people have a right to marry and people below 21 cannot drink.

I am a European Christian living in the U.S. and have no idea why there is even a debate about this here.

[Proud Foot]

Cathy,  Thank you, that makes sense.  From what you said it seems that, while a better defense than what she is using, the 10th amendment isn't a sound defense either. 

[Tyson]

It's funny, people support this lady for refusing to marry gay couples because of her Christian religious beliefs.  I wonder if they would support her just as much if she were a Muslim and opposed it for not complying with Sharia Law.

[Jellyfish]

slightly off topic, but the @nexttokimdavis twitter account is the best thing I saw on the internet today:

https://twitter.com/nexttokimdavis?lang=en

[MoonShadow]

It's funny, people support this lady for refusing to marry gay couples because of her Christian religious beliefs.  I wonder if they would support her just as much if she were a Muslim and opposed it for not complying with Sharia Law.

Support or not, the solution should be the same.  Simply vote her out when the chance arises.  If you can't find anyone willing to stand up for what you believe in, run for the office. 

[Tyson]

It's funny, people support this lady for refusing to marry gay couples because of her Christian religious beliefs.  I wonder if they would support her just as much if she were a Muslim and opposed it for not complying with Sharia Law.

Support or not, the solution should be the same.  Simply vote her out when the chance arises.  If you can't find anyone willing to stand up for what you believe in, run for the office.

Maybe.  I don't really care one way or the other.  As a pretty hardcore liberal, I do have to say I love it when stuff like this happens.  The country was already drifting toward a more liberal world view, and things like this simply accelerate the process.  I suspect as the right loses more and more ground in the cultural wars, they will become ever more strident and will act in this manner more and more on the national stage.  And that makes me happy.

[MoonShadow]

It's funny, people support this lady for refusing to marry gay couples because of her Christian religious beliefs.  I wonder if they would support her just as much if she were a Muslim and opposed it for not complying with Sharia Law.

Support or not, the solution should be the same.  Simply vote her out when the chance arises.  If you can't find anyone willing to stand up for what you believe in, run for the office.

Maybe.  I don't really care one way or the other.  As a pretty hardcore liberal, I do have to say I love it when stuff like this happens.  The country was already drifting toward a more liberal world view, and things like this simple accelerate the process.  I suspect as the right loses more and more ground in the cultural wars, they will become ever more strident and will act in this manner more and more on the national stage.  And that makes me happy.

Well, thank you for the honesty, I guess.  But I fear it's not going to work out like you hope.  Sometimes it's best to give the culture a generation to adapt to change, instead of pressing an advantage.  Push too hard, and there might be an unexpected result.

[Stache-O-Lantern]

I consider myself a liberal, but more and more I'm disturbed by the level of discourse descended to by people on the left and this is the latest example. Can you imagine the outrage if a controversial liberal female were called bitch and cunt or had her past sexual history dragged out into the open or jokes made about her appearance which I see on comments all over this issue.

And I don't like the arguments that slam her down for acting on her convictions. You can argue that she's doing it for publicity, not convictions, yes, or that her convictions are wrong, yes, but I don't get the sudden support for just mindlessly doing what your employer tells you.

There was a meme going around saying that supporting Kim Davis was like supporting a quaker clerk who wouldn't issue gun permits because it was against their religion. And yet somehow I'm sure that you could find plenty of support among my acquaintances for such a quaker.  History doesn't condemn those who helped the Underground Railroad in violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Or people who dodged the draft for moral reasons. Most people who know of him think Chiune Sugihara, the Japanese ambassador who issued tons of visas for Jews looking to escape Hitler's Germany (edited: Lithuania) despite the circumstances being contrary to his government's procedure, is a hero.  Liberals didn't have terrible things to say about Gavin Newsom and the officials of San Francisco for granting same-sex marriage certificates in 2004 despite the fact that it appeared to be in violation of state law. No one would be telling these people to sit down and shut up if they don't like that their job requires them to do immoral things. Saying people should simply carry out the government's orders without question strikes me as an argument of convenience.

I guess what I'm saying here is you can judge her actions as being immoral and you don't need a legalistic argument for why. I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion in my circles, but there's right and wrong and you know wrong when you see it. i guess...I feel like I'm not saying this very well, I mean, it is great to apply rational thought to your convictions, but people appear to be using a bunch of rational-sounding buzzwords as window-dressing for an argument that boils down to a moral conviction but they're afraid to say it.

+1

Let me preface my comment below by saying I'm literally afraid i'm about to poke a hornet's nest, but here goes.

A lot of the comments here criticize the clerk for not upholding the law, regardless of her personal rationale.  I would agree.  But i would have a similar criticism of the president not upholding federal drug law in states that have legalized and regulated it.  And I'm in favor of equal marriage rights for gay people, and in favor of marijuana legalization.  But if it is the job of both the clerk and the president to carry out the law in their particular jurisdiction and within the scope of their office, then what is the difference, based on a "rule of law" argument?  There is the court order in the case of the clerk, but most would agree that marijuana is clearly illegal under federal law.  It is too easy to quickly jump to disparaging comments when it's about somebody with a  different set of beliefs/values as your own, and to overlook a comparable set of circumstances when they happen to align with your own point of view.

Ok, sting me.

[Tyson]

It's funny, people support this lady for refusing to marry gay couples because of her Christian religious beliefs.  I wonder if they would support her just as much if she were a Muslim and opposed it for not complying with Sharia Law.

Support or not, the solution should be the same.  Simply vote her out when the chance arises.  If you can't find anyone willing to stand up for what you believe in, run for the office.

Maybe.  I don't really care one way or the other.  As a pretty hardcore liberal, I do have to say I love it when stuff like this happens.  The country was already drifting toward a more liberal world view, and things like this simple accelerate the process.  I suspect as the right loses more and more ground in the cultural wars, they will become ever more strident and will act in this manner more and more on the national stage.  And that makes me happy.

Well, thank you for the honesty, I guess.  But I fear it's not going to work out like you hope.  Sometimes it's best to give the culture a generation to adapt to change, instead of pressing an advantage.  Push too hard, and there might be an unexpected result.

I'm always honest.  And you are right, cultural change does tend to be generational.  Looking at what the Millennials lean toward is very, very encouraging.  Well, encouraging if you're a liberal.  Scary if your a conservative. 

[MoonShadow]

I'm always honest.  And you are right, cultural change does tend to be generational.  Looking at what the Millennials lean toward is very, very encouraging.  Well, encouraging if you're a liberal.  Scary if your a conservative.

Maybe, but then one or both of us are looking at Millennials through our own biases, because I look at those same Millennials and see libertarians in the rough.  Either way, if there actually exists what I think you are calling a conservative, it would be just as scary.

[music lover]

I consider myself a liberal, but more and more I'm disturbed by the level of discourse descended to by people on the left and this is the latest example. Can you imagine the outrage if a controversial liberal female were called bitch and cunt or had her past sexual history dragged out into the open or jokes made about her appearance which I see on comments all over this issue.

And I don't like the arguments that slam her down for acting on her convictions. You can argue that she's doing it for publicity, not convictions, yes, or that her convictions are wrong, yes, but I don't get the sudden support for just mindlessly doing what your employer tells you.

There was a meme going around saying that supporting Kim Davis was like supporting a quaker clerk who wouldn't issue gun permits because it was against their religion. And yet somehow I'm sure that you could find plenty of support among my acquaintances for such a quaker.  History doesn't condemn those who helped the Underground Railroad in violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Or people who dodged the draft for moral reasons. Most people who know of him think Chiune Sugihara, the Japanese ambassador who issued tons of visas for Jews looking to escape Hitler's Germany (edited: Lithuania) despite the circumstances being contrary to his government's procedure, is a hero.  Liberals didn't have terrible things to say about Gavin Newsom and the officials of San Francisco for granting same-sex marriage certificates in 2004 despite the fact that it appeared to be in violation of state law. No one would be telling these people to sit down and shut up if they don't like that their job requires them to do immoral things. Saying people should simply carry out the government's orders without question strikes me as an argument of convenience.

I guess what I'm saying here is you can judge her actions as being immoral and you don't need a legalistic argument for why. I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion in my circles, but there's right and wrong and you know wrong when you see it. i guess...I feel like I'm not saying this very well, I mean, it is great to apply rational thought to your convictions, but people appear to be using a bunch of rational-sounding buzzwords as window-dressing for an argument that boils down to a moral conviction but they're afraid to say it.

+1

Let me preface my comment below by saying I'm literally afraid i'm about to poke a hornet's nest, but here goes.

A lot of the comments here criticize the clerk for not upholding the law, regardless of her personal rationale.  I would agree.  But i would have a similar criticism of the president not upholding federal drug law in states that have legalized and regulated it.  And I'm in favor of equal marriage rights for gay people, and in favor of marijuana legalization.  But if it is the job of both the clerk and the president to carry out the law in their particular jurisdiction and within the scope of their office, then what is the difference, based on a "rule of law" argument?  There is the court order in the case of the clerk, but most would agree that marijuana is clearly illegal under federal law.  It is too easy to quickly jump to disparaging comments when it's about somebody with a  different set of beliefs/values as your own, and to overlook a comparable set of circumstances when they happen to align with your own point of view.

Ok, sting me.

The reality is that many Liberals will viciously attack anyone they disagree with, and some will then even gloat about it after, but they are also very selective and have an amazing capacity to overlook any law breaking by Liberals that they like.

[MoonShadow]

The reality is that many Liberals will viciously attack anyone they disagree with, and some will then even gloat about it after, but they are also very selective and have an amazing capacity to overlook any law breaking by Liberals that they like.

This is true enough for some people on every side of any issue.

[iamlindoro]

The reality is that many Liberals humans will viciously attack anyone they disagree with, and some will then even gloat about it after, but they are also very selective and have an amazing capacity to overlook any law breaking by Liberals humans that they like.

FTFY.

[Sailor Sam]

Your entire post

Hey Sheepstache, thanks for your thought provoking post. You've summed up some of my thoughts, but with more eloquence and clarity.

I too consider myself a liberal, with a personal stake in this particular culture war. And I too find the level of discourse between liberals and conservatives to be very disheartening. In fact I would asses the level of true conversation and debate at about zero. Even sites such as NPR that generally attracts a more thoughtful crowd spiral down very quickly. This thread is doing pretty well, but it's had a few snipes both ways.

As for Kim Davis - I'd point out that all your examples of people defying the law fell on the side of the angels. We don't hold Mr George Wallace in high esteem, and as someone upthread pointed out, Ms Davis will probably end up being on the wrong side of history. But you are right, her past is not the issue, nor is her hypocrisy. We should focus on her current actions, and home for some thin thread of debate.

[Kris]

I've been wondering which side Trump would fall to.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/04/donald-trump-kentucky-clerk-broke-the-law-of-the-land-by-blocking-gay-weddings/

Looks like he is standing with the rule of law.

[MoonShadow]

I've been wondering which side Trump would fall to.

Looks like he is standing with the rule of law.

So, Kris; in a head to head matchup between Mr 'Rule-of-law' Trump and Mrs. 'I did not have textual relations with that server!' Clinton, who would you vote for?

[midweststache]

Your entire post

Hey Sheepstache, thanks for your thought provoking post. You've summed up some of my thoughts, but with more eloquence and clarity.

I too consider myself a liberal, with a personal stake in this particular culture war. And I too find the level of discourse between liberals and conservatives to be very disheartening. In fact I would asses the level of true conversation and debate at about zero. Even sites such as NPR that generally attracts a more thoughtful crowd spiral down very quickly. This thread is doing pretty well, but it's had a few snipes both ways.

As for Kim Davis - I'd point out that all your examples of people defying the law fell on the side of the angels. We don't hold Mr George Wallace in high esteem, and as someone upthread pointed out, Ms Davis will probably end up being on the wrong side of history. But you are right, her past is not the issue, nor is her hypocrisy. We should focus on her current actions, and home for some thin thread of debate.

Absolutely. All of this, sheepstache and SailorSam. Her past doesn't matter, and by bringing it up her hypocrisy becomes the issue, not the the fact that she's breaking the law. The tree is lost for the other trees, to paraphrase the popular saying. By delving into the personal and the individual we get away from the fact that a civil servant is willfully not doing her job.

The Kim Davis conversation is an important conversation to have--what religious liberty means, what it means to practice one's religious identity, the separation of church and state--and the hateful discourse surrounding Kim Davis as a person is obscuring that conversation and bringing it down into muckraking and name-calling.

[sheepstache]

As for Kim Davis - I'd point out that all your examples of people defying the law fell on the side of the angels. We don't hold Mr George Wallace in high esteem, and as someone upthread pointed out, Ms Davis will probably end up being on the wrong side of history.

Oh, sure, I meant those examples specifically in response to the reactions I've seen in this case. People are talking like the fact that she defied the government or isn't doing her job is, ipso facto, a moral slam dunk against her. But most people, if they think about their views across a range of examples, would find that they don't think of defying the government as being either bad or good but base their judgement entirely on whether they agree with the reason for it.

eta: something that I deleted to make a later post.

[Kris]

I've been wondering which side Trump would fall to.

Looks like he is standing with the rule of law.

So, Kris; in a head to head matchup between Mr 'Rule-of-law' Trump and Mrs. 'I did not have textual relations with that server!' Clinton, who would you vote for?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-defends-private-email-use

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Not do I think she should be tarred implicitly for the actions of her husband, as your post implies in its reference.

I do not particularly like Hillary Clinton. But she does inarguably have a great deal of experience that makes her a qualified candidate.

Trump, on the other hand, has absolutely no experience, plus a shaky (at best) understanding of how government works. Not to mention that his only manner of argument seems to be ad hominem attacks (which reminds me of someone else), and the appearance that he is incapable of taking others' experience and advice into consideration. Add to that that he seems to fly into an irrational rage whenever someone says anything at all critical of him, and I find the prospect of his dealing with world leaders frankly terrifying. Donald Trump with his finger on the button? No thank you.

[Cathy]

I thought it might be helpful to add the following fact, which I haven't seen mentioned in the popular news media.

As explained in my previous post, Davis is not imprisoned as punishment, but solely to coerce her into compliance with the court's orders. The flip side of this is that if Davis's religious beliefs are really sufficiently sincere that jail will not persuade her to comply with the law, then there is no basis for keeping her in jail since the sole legal basis for it is coercion. Indeed, if Davis can persuade Judge Bunning or an appellate court that imprisonment is not going to change her mind, then they will have to release her, even though she continues to flout the law. See, e.g., In re Lawrence, 279 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir 2002) (explaining that "[i]f the ... judge determines that, although [Davis] has the ability to [comply], [s]he will steadfastly refuse to do so, the judge will be obligated to release [Davis] because the subject incarceration would no longer serve the civil purpose of coercion").

In due course, Davis will have the opportunity to argue that no matter how long she remains in jail, she will not comply with the court's orders, and if the judge is persuaded that that is true, Davis will be released.

[ncornilsen]

As a nation we can either be a nation guided by the rule or law -the whole thing- or we aren't. Enforce the law, or let there be all kinds of sanctuary cities; maybe some cities won't enforce federal immiration policy, some won't enforce federal workerplace law, maybe others won't enforce federal envionmental law, others won't enforce federal aviation laws. If San Fran can refuse to enforce immigration law, why can't this podunk town refuse to enforce laws governing gay marriage?

The rule of law is not something we appeal to only when it suits our position du jour. That's why we have the rule of law.

Can we jail the four clerks in Oregon who issues gay marriage licenses illegally (a few years ago) right after the state said NO to gay marriage by a 14% margin?  Liberals are plenty capable of hypocrisy too.

You are absolutely right.

But that jackass clerk should still be in jail for contempt of court.

[MoonShadow]

I've been wondering which side Trump would fall to.

Looks like he is standing with the rule of law.

So, Kris; in a head to head matchup between Mr 'Rule-of-law' Trump and Mrs. 'I did not have textual relations with that server!' Clinton, who would you vote for?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-defends-private-email-use

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Not the only one, no. 

Not do I think she should be tarred implicitly for the actions of her husband, as your post implies in its reference.

Heh, I was joking about that part.  My form of humor seems to affect you in peculiar ways.

I do not particularly like Hillary Clinton. But she does inarguably have a great deal of experience that makes her a qualified candidate.

Trump, on the other hand, has absolutely no experience, plus a shaky (at best) understanding of how government works. Not to mention that his only manner of argument seems to be ad hominem attacks (which reminds me of someone else),

Now you are just being mean.

 and the appearance that he is incapable of taking others' experience and advice into consideration. I find the prospect of his dealing with world leaders frankly terrifying. Donald Trump with his finger on the button? No thank you.

Me, too; but it looks like we are both going to have to adapt to the fear.

[Sailor Sam]

Oh, sure, I meant those examples specifically in response to the reactions I've seen in this case. People are talking like the fact that she defied the government or isn't doing her job is, ipso facto, a moral slam dunk against her. But most people, if they think about their views across a range of examples, would find that they don't think of defying the government as being either bad or good but base their judgement entirely on whether they agree with the reason for it.

Roger! Thanks for the clarification. The bolded part really snapped it in for me and I understand your argument even better now.

I guess it's just human nature to attack the moral character of someone who has an opposing moral stance. No character  = no legitimacy to their stance. But that's too easy. We should try harder as a species. We could even look at the discussion as a MMM type exercise - willingly enduring the discomfort of truly considering an opposing viewpoint. Then we could have debate, instead of camps talking past each other. 

[Kris]

Not do I think she should be tarred implicitly for the actions of her husband, as your post implies in its reference.

Heh, I was joking about that part.  My form of humor seems to affect you in peculiar ways.

No; I just find it stupid. It is a poor placeholder for actual thought.

[music lover]

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Clinton had top secret/classified emails on a private server that were likely hacked by America's enemies. That's not only a severe breach of security, but may also have led to the death of Americans.

But as I pointed out earlier...the left have an amazing capacity to overlook or minimize instances like this, and the lack of outrage from the left is quite telling.

[Kris]

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Clinton had top secret/classified emails on a private server that were likely hacked by America's enemies. That's not only a severe breach of security, but may also have led to the death of Americans.

But as I pointed out earlier...the left have an amazing capacity to overlook or minimize instances like this, and the lack of outrage from the left is quite telling.

Music Lover: no offense, but I just don't have the emotional energy to deal with more than one Fox News aficionado at a time.

[Tyson]

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Clinton had top secret/classified emails on a private server that were likely hacked by America's enemies. That's not only a severe breach of security, but may also have led to the death of Americans.

But as I pointed out earlier...the left have an amazing capacity to overlook or minimize instances like this, and the lack of outrage from the left is quite telling.

Music Lover: no offense, but I just don't have the emotional energy to deal with more than one Fox News aficionado at a time.

BENGHAZI!!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist :P

[MoonShadow]

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Clinton had top secret/classified emails on a private server that were likely hacked by America's enemies. That's not only a severe breach of security, but may also have led to the death of Americans.

But as I pointed out earlier...the left have an amazing capacity to overlook or minimize instances like this, and the lack of outrage from the left is quite telling.

Music Lover: no offense, but I just don't have the emotional energy to deal with more than one Fox News aficionado at a time.

You should be doing fine then, because I don't watch Fox.

[music lover]

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Clinton had top secret/classified emails on a private server that were likely hacked by America's enemies. That's not only a severe breach of security, but may also have led to the death of Americans.

But as I pointed out earlier...the left have an amazing capacity to overlook or minimize instances like this, and the lack of outrage from the left is quite telling.

Music Lover: no offense, but I just don't have the emotional energy to deal with more than one Fox News aficionado at a time.

I'm Canadian...I have no interest in Fox News. Nice try at deflecting, though :) :)

[Kris]

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Clinton had top secret/classified emails on a private server that were likely hacked by America's enemies. That's not only a severe breach of security, but may also have led to the death of Americans.

But as I pointed out earlier...the left have an amazing capacity to overlook or minimize instances like this, and the lack of outrage from the left is quite telling.

Music Lover: no offense, but I just don't have the emotional energy to deal with more than one Fox News aficionado at a time.

I'm Canadian...I have no interest in Fox News. Nice try at deflecting, though :) :)

Damn. That doesn't speak well of Canadians. I always thought of them as such reasonable, measured people.

So you thought this up all by yourself, did you?

[MoonShadow]

Well, given that apparently, Hillary Clinton is not the only elected representative who has ever used a private email account, I'm not sure she is the only one who should be pilloried.

Clinton had top secret/classified emails on a private server that were likely hacked by America's enemies. That's not only a severe breach of security, but may also have led to the death of Americans.

But as I pointed out earlier...the left have an amazing capacity to overlook or minimize instances like this, and the lack of outrage from the left is quite telling.

Music Lover: no offense, but I just don't have the emotional energy to deal with more than one Fox News aficionado at a time.

I'm Canadian...I have no interest in Fox News. Nice try at deflecting, though :) :)

Damn. That doesn't speak well of Canadians. I always thought of them as such reasonable, measured people.

So you thought this up all by yourself, did you?

Ha! Now that's funny, right there!  I see that you have been practicing since we last spoke, Kris.

[GuitarStv]

It always struck me as odd that nobody on the right will own up to watching Fox news, nobody on the left wants to watch Fox news . . . and yet Fox is the most popular news program in America and shows year over year growth quite reliably.

[Cressida]

There was a meme going around saying that supporting Kim Davis was like supporting a quaker clerk who wouldn't issue gun permits because it was against their religion. And yet somehow I'm sure that you could find plenty of support among my acquaintances for such a quaker. 

Sure, they might admire the Quaker's values, but I bet they would also agree that the Quaker should probably find another line of work. Which I don't think Kim Davis's supporters will concede.

[Kris]

There was a meme going around saying that supporting Kim Davis was like supporting a quaker clerk who wouldn't issue gun permits because it was against their religion. And yet somehow I'm sure that you could find plenty of support among my acquaintances for such a quaker. 

Sure, they might admire the Quaker's values, but I bet they would also agree that the Quaker should probably find another line of work. Which I don't think Kim Davis's supporters will concede.

Exactly. I agree with the hypothetical Quaker's values, but he or she still has the duty to uphold the law.

[MoonShadow]

It always struck me as odd that nobody on the right will own up to watching Fox news, nobody on the left wants to watch Fox news . . . and yet Fox is the most popular news program in America and shows year over year growth quite reliably.

Why is that strange?  Are you so traveled that you believe you have met enough "on the right"?  Perhaps an internet forum isn't the most likely place to encounter anyone who still makes a habit of watching television at all.  As for myself, I have neither cable tv service, nor even an antenna on my tv.  I have a Roku 3, and my family and I mostly watch Amazon Prime TV & Netflix, while my kids mostly watch edu-tainment video shorts on Youtube such as Vsauce, Extra History, The Great War & Prager University.  My oldest son, moreso than his siblings, is an autodidact; and the modern Internet is his playground.  Sometimes he shows me some of these videos he finds most interesting, but for the most part, I don't have time for television anymore.

[MoonShadow]

Which I don't think Kim Davis's supporters will concede.

Of course not.  Then she wouldn't have the leverage anymore.  She wouldn't ever have mattered if not for her position.