The Kentucky county clerk who gained national notoriety for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple shortly after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, has been washed away in a blue wave three years in the making.
Republican Kim Davis lost her bid for Rowan County clerkship re-election to Democrat Elwood Caudill Jr. in a decisive 54 to 46 percent decision.
Wave Goodbye to Kim Davis
The political tides seem to have finally turned. Although she was jailed for five days for contempt of court and thereby celebrated as a defender of religious freedom by social conservatives, many believe Davis' refusal to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple under the pretense she was upholding "God's authority" is what precipitated her political downfall.
That backlash started when David Ermold, one of the gay men she refused to marry, managed to raise over $200,000 from donors nationwide to campaign against her- although he'd eventually lose the Democratic primary to candidate Caudill in May. For his part, Caudill pledged to serve every citizen of this county equally. Per his campaign website: "I will faithfully execute the job of Rowan County Clerk and serve all citizens equally. Of course that means LGBTQ+ citizens. I support every American's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," afforded them under the laws of our nation, and I do not believe our government should discriminate against anyone for being who they are."
To this day, Davis has stuck to her spiritual guns, claiming same-sex marriage went against her beliefs as an Apostolic Church member. "I took an oath to stand up and uphold our Kentucky constitution and federal constitution," she then clarified at a conference in October, "that's exactly what I did."
Have Your Wedding Cake and Eat It Too?
It is clear that in today's secular America, one cannot claim to both uphold the Constitution and make decisions under God's Authority. In other words, citizens conflicted with moral and religious objections to homosexuality cannot simply hide under the guise of the religious freedom amendment of our nation's founding document. Those in power must not let their personal beliefs cloud their ability to do their job.
Yes, Kim Davis is free to live her life biblically. And fellow Christians can continue to question how a woman who has been divorced three times and had children out of wedlock can claim to be so pious in the first place.
That being said, public servants need to keep their religious beliefs in check.
Because if the recent blue wave has taught folks anything, it's that those seeking to surf both sides of the secular/religious divide might just end up wiping out.
I'm sure little Donny is celebrating with his inflatable boyfriend.
It's so cute when spineless cowardly child molesters like John Owens behave so predictably. Thanks, Boy, for once again showing your true colors. (and this, ladies and gentlemen, is your typical Christian poster on this site - what a joy, eh?)
"Have Your Wedding Cake and Eat It Too? It is clear that in today’s secular America, one cannot claim to both uphold the Constitution and make decisions under God’s Authority. In other words, citizens conflicted with moral and religious objections to homosexuality cannot simply hide under the guise of the religious freedom amendment of our nation’s founding document. Those in power must not let their personal beliefs cloud their ability to do their job."
Actually YES. You can have your cake an eat it too. And contrary to your biased article against deeply held Christian beliefs, the Supreme Court has ruled "In the 7-2 decision, the court said legal proceedings in Colorado had shown a hostility to the baker’s religious views. " You can not be openly hostile to someone's religious beliefs when asking the question of a person's right to refuse services due to his or her beliefs which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission open displayed in this case. Granted the baker is in the private sector and serving the public and not in the public sector as was Kim Davis.
If you work for the Beast expect to be stripped of your own personal liberty as an accommodation to diversity. Kim Davis should have made a better choice which would have been to walk away from the Public sector. I would have done exactly that the very first time someone told what I should believe, accept, or accommodate when it directly conflicts with my religious beliefs.
"your biased article against deeply held Christian beliefs"
Ah yes, that evil bias against treating women like property, owning slaves, beating your own children to death when they misbehave...oh, I'm sorry, were those not the deeply held Christian beliefs you were referencing?
Pick and Choose Christianity is an exercise in hypocrisy.
'dun': You'd better 'pick and choose' before it's too late! Your eternal destiny depends on it!
We've all broken the laws of a righteous, holy, loving, forgiving God. But, He has provided forgiveness through His son, Jesus. By our accepting Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, we can be reconciled to God.
So, 'pick' your destination (heaven or hell) and 'choose' the road you'll travel: the cross of Christ to heaven, or your own road to perdition.
It's one of life's most serious decisions you'll make!
'Phlegmo' This forum is not the place for your cowardly superstitious threats. Kindly take them, along with your child raping Triune god, and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. Thanks so much.
flugo, you are too funny.....and of course...... too indoctrinated and uneducated.
Here's your righteous, holy, loving, forgiving god in action. Who in their right mind would want to follow this god......... if he existed?
GENOCIDE (Genesis 7:23) ETHNIC CLEANSING (Jeremiah 50:21-22 et al) INFANTICIDE(Exodus 12:29-30) MURDER (2 Samuel; 6:3-7 et al) SLAVERY (Ephesians 6:5 et al. Exodus 21) SEX TRAFFICKING (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 et al) RAPE (Deuteronomy (20:10-14 et al) PUNISHING THE INNOCENT (Genesis 3) EXTORTION (John 6:40; Revelation 20:15) KILLING PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITHS (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
To name but a few!!!!!
If God your is love, Hitler deserved a Nobel Peace Prize.
That last line should read:
If your God is love, Hitler deserved a Nobel Peace Prize
Public servants serve ALL the public. If you cannot do that, you do not belong in public service. Religious liberty applies to everyone, including those different from you. It's only a small step until your particular brand of religion is not the majority; then you are subjected to the new brand's beliefs -- IF you allow any religion to influence your government. I want the Constitution, not somebody's religious or other personal beliefs, to be the basis our nation's laws.
I’m glad she’s no longer in that position. Do we know if the new elected person will be the same? Is that person also a misguided Christian?
This is a difficult subject to find common ground on, but we can still try. I have said in the past that everyone has a basic right to believe how they wish to believe, provided that the belief does not impose itself contrary to what society as a whole will accept. In this specific instance, the clerk in question, (paid by TAX dollars), refused to follow law and statute laid down by the judicial branch. What happened to the clerk was justified in this example. Now in the case of a baker, an artist that uses edible medium to create, it seems to me that they should be allowed to decide who they create art for. The great thing about this system is that bakers who refuse bussiness do not last long. There is always someone else that will gladly take the bussiness. Remember that everyone has a belief, everyone. We all have to live together. So we all do not get everything we want, that is just life. Society as a whole must survive. To that end we must include as much of society as possible. Not all beliefs are good ones. Some are centered around HARMING others. Society as a whole decides those standards and how they are enforced.The government part of society, chosen by the people, is charged with upholding the standards put into place. So before another controversy is started here, remember that society, not just a few, but many, get to decide the standards that we live by. That is just the way of things.
Without reading all your comments, don't forget the separation of church and state. It's just not good to cross those lines.What does it matter regarding the lbgt community and we downtrodden hetero's.? If two people love each other, the minister/county clerk can have an opinion but should not let that person refuse to serve anyone who needs their services. These kinds of prejudices need to stop now but it may take another 100 years or so for the Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King's and other trail blazers to be heard and accepted.
Who calls this last election a 'blue wave'? Sorry that was no 'blue wave', but nice try... The House is Republican and when the senate wants something they send it over for approval. In January we will have even MORE conservatives there... Was it great for republicans, no but the senate is only 2 years, the house 4. In 2 years if the economy stays as strong as it is now, the dems raise taxes back where they were 3 years ago, try to impeach President Trump and keep promoting abortion the Republicans will be back with a majority in the senate also... Just watch...
I’m sorry, but you are misinformed regarding the length of service for each branch of Congress. House members are elected for two years, while senate members serve for six. I’m not sure what bearing this clarification will have on the case you are trying to make, but it is a notable distinction.
Terry seems misinformed about a great many things. Want to bet a paycheck he's a Christian? This type of ignorant bigotry is rare among the non religious.
Terry: We call it a Blue Wave because it is. "Democrats have won at least 33 seats, but they look poised to win closer to 40 — there are 13 races that are either not called or too close to call, and Democrats have a solid chance of winning seven of those." The Dems in control of the House will start investigation on the illegalities, ethics violations, unconstitutional decrees, and tax evasion of the tRump. We all await the report of Mr. Mueller and the tRump is shaking in his boots as to what it will reaveal about his conspiracies https://www.axios.com/democrats-2018-midterm-elections-house-congress-20ad294d-c608-4f70-af89-97d683757ed0.html
The Dems have also taken back govenorships and state legislatures. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-midterm-elections-democrats-make-gains-in-state-legislatures-governorships/
Also, A Senator holds office for six years, not two and a Representatives holds office for two years. You need to go and study your basic U.S. government.
Terry: We cll it a Blue Wave because it is and the statistics prove it. Democrats won 53.0% of the popular vote in House races versus the Repubs who won only 45.3%. That's a 7.7% difference. The Dems won 7 Senate seats that Repubs usually win. Dems won 37 House seats and there are 3 races still to be decided, giving the Dems control of the House. Dems won 7 governor ships; won 336 state legislative seats; and took 6 state legislative state houses. With Dems in control of the House Trump faces many investigations over his criminal acts, ethics violations, conspiracy with the Russians to rig the 2016 presidential election, and his unconstitutional violations of his oath of office. That's the facts!!
Kim Davis is a simple hypocrite. She claimed to be following her faith while disobeying God's law. She took an oath before God to faithfully uphold and follow the law set forth in her county, then broke that oath. Her choice was simple, either resign and hold true to her faith, or issue the marriage licenses and hold true to her oath. She chose to break her oath, and the Bible is very clear in many places on how God feels about those who break an oath taken in His name. She was looking for publicity and fame, nothing more.
Marriage is for men and women not men and men .and women and women .people dont like when we talk about JESUS but we have to listen to their weights go figure
Whoever told you "marriage is for men and women not men and men" was not only lying to you, but is a complete idiot.
Marriage existed long before the Bible or Christianity and included same sex marriage in many cultures. Quit being an ignorant bigot and open a history book.
Don: Talk about JEEEEEESUS all you want. I recognize him as a historical figure but not as the literal son of god as the dogma of of so-called orthodoxy speaks of him. Also, the bible is not the final authority except for those who believe it is so stop quoting it to us like it is. It may be your final authority for the rest of us it is not.
Oops. The previous was meant for Jim NOT Don. I apologize to Don. Jim can talk about JEEEEESUS all he wants. Don, I agree with your comment completely!1
Marriage, the word proper, was the creation of organized religion. It was originally meant to show ownership. It was also a way to keep track of the population, either for taxation purposes or to serve whom ever was in power at the time. So far, all of the accepted organized religions only recognize a union between men and women. I personaly do not care who marries who. I have my own beliefs and do not need to share someone elses beliefs. Stop trying to create controversy. I wish I knew what was wrong with some of you, you live to argue. Who the hell cares? Furthermore, is all this bull going to make any difference 100 years from now?
'dun': The God of this universe; the loving, eternal, forgiving and holy God established marriage relationships that Jim mentioned. And Jesus supported the same relationships. God said so, and that's final!
Your version, do not press that holier than tho crap on me. Nothing is ever final except death. Life is fluid, forever changing, and so you can adapt to life, or stay stuck in the past. To use your language, "God created man to grow, advance, and achieve all that is possible." Your final word makes growth impossible, leading only to a stagnated existence, completely void of advancement and acievement.
"Phlegmo" Your god is a fictitious entity, born of the imaginations of people who did not know where the sun went at night. Sorry about that.
Don, well said. I would like to add open a real history book, not one created to teach a version of history.
Jim: Medieval Christians had same sex marriage rites Read and learn.
"Gay marriage sounds like an ultra-contemporary idea. But almost twenty years ago, a Catholic scholar at Yale shocked the world by publishing a book packed with evidence that same-sex marriages were sanctioned by the early Christian Church during an era commonly called the Dark Ages. John Boswell was a historian and religious Catholic who dedicated much of his scholarly life to studying the late Roman Empire and early Christian Church. Poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages. (He found almost no records of lesbian unions, which is probably an artifact of a culture which kept more records about the lives of men generally.)"
"Early Christian rituals have been found for brotherhood unions between two men akin to 'marriage' ceremonies. Conservative Christians may be surprised to learn of evidence that rituals for sanctification of same-sex unions predated those for heterosexual marriage, unsettling claims that the latter has always been the cornerstone of society, especially Christian society. Major research shows that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between a man and a woman. In ancient times in many cultures marriages between two or more people created strategic alliances in and between families, for purposes such as strengthening bonds, expanding the labour force or joint enterprises. Historian John Boswell notes: No marriages in ancient societies closely match their modem equivalents. Most were vastly more informal; some were more rigid.... No precise criteria could be specified as constituting a "legal" marriage... two people who lived together permanently and whose union was recognized by the community were "married". He adds that love was not its essential feature, nor was sexual activity, or procreation. Polygamy was also common, even among nobility of Christian Europe. In the late Roman Empire, 'marriage' came to be understood as the union of two people based on mutual affection ('companionate' or 'brother-making') between two or maybe more males or, occasionally, females. These ceremonies appear from archives to have occurred in the Catholic Church up to the 14th century and in the Eastern Orthodox Church up to the 18th century." https://www.nswrationalists.com/same-sex-marriage.html
I have just been schooled. Thank you for the research.
How we as a nation of unique individuals still be debating religion.IN the 21st century is beyond belief. Whatever is your wish, dream, nightmare, and mental problem you are welcome to mull it over with anyone interested, in PRIVATE. Keep it to yourself, and refrain from forcing it on innocent children. We got wars, genocides, loss of freedoms, bad laws, and a host of other problems - all the outgrowth of religion. STOP it. I don't want your fantasy life anywhere in the vicinity of where I and my loved ones have to be.
Well said. They will not hear it, but keep right on saying it.
Why oh why do we insist on politicizing everything. Blue wave, Red wave, MORONIC TSUNAMI!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll say this. Politics have no place in our business at all. Clients come in here and look at what we say. They also look for us in Facebook and I know some of you are stupid enough to do that there as wel. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER let anyone know my political affiliation. If you want to continue to judge people on these basis, go ahead, do that. I, however, take my business and most of all, the non judgmental well being of my clients very seriously. To them I owe respect. To my co-ministers also, not to people that spend most of their time looking to judge others. So go ahead, keep playing these stupid games.
I'll make sure that everyone understands not only your affiliation but your conduct as well. Believe that!!!!!!!!!!!
"If you want to continue to judge people"
You mean the way you're judging everyone on this page?
Hypocrites of ANY political affiliation suck.
What you don't know, Gary, is that your citation just disproved your point. Justice Kennedy specifically said that this majority opinion IN NO WAY affects or is a model for other cases in which bigots discriminate against members of the public in their public places of business. “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” That's because the court agrees that the bakers were in the wrong, just like Kim Davis was wrong. They just thought that the lower court showed bias, so their ruling had to be thrown out. The way you talk to people with such an arrogance, one might mistake you as someone who knows what he is talking about. But clearly your understanding of these circumstances is incredibly narrow; just wide enough to let through the parts you want to hear while ignoring the majority of them, those being the most relevant. So the comment isn't biased or incorrect. You are.