Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 9:02:10 AM (updated 9/4/2015 9:04:47 AM)

should be fired because she is using religion as an excuse.  It is not so much an excuse to refuse to perform the public duties she was elected to perform, but because she is refusing to perform them in order to become a "Christian" martyr!  No one can know, but I suspect if we could we would find Jesus is NOT amused!  This ditz has had more than her 15 minutes and needs to exit the stage!

Name:	Council Rock Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 9:50:42 AM

Archie,

From what I understand, she cannot be fired, reassigned, etc because she was elected.  Can only be removed by action of the state legislature.  When she was elected, gay marriage in Kentucky was prohibited by the voters.  Now, i am confident that when I peruse previous posts about the illegality of sanctuary cities in this forum, I will surely find your name among the most vocal of supporters calling for the resignations of all mayors that ignored immigration law that resulted in loss of life.  Have to be consistent Archie...

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 10:32:59 AM

And I'm sure you would find all our liberal and progressive posters advocating the purge of the entire executive branch of our government for their failure to enforce existing law.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 11:36:27 AM (updated 9/4/2015 11:52:42 AM)

I can't recall ever posting any comments regarding so called "sanctuary cities" but say start the search.  For the typical poster on this forum to accuse me of inconsistancy is smile envoking to put it mildly.

She did not take an oath to only uphold the laws in force at the time of her oath.  If she now feels she cannot uphold her oath of office she should resign.  I seem to remember an early Christian stating that one should "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's." I guess Mrs Davis only agrees with half that statement.

While I don't like to use the term "purge" it is certainly my belief that any elected or appointed official who is charged with upholding the law should resign if he or she ever decides they cannot do so for personal reasons religious or othewise.  I might add, however, selective inforcement for reasons other than personal ones may be, in some instances, completely acceptable and has been so throughout history.

Name:	Tall Cotton -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 11:44:48 AM

What law did she break? The SCOTUS ruling can not be construed as law since only legislative branches can write laws. She swore to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not to uphold all rulings by any judiciary branch. 

Name:	Council Rock Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 12:00:43 PM

She broke no law.  She disobeyed a judges order Archie.  He simply could have fined her.  By jailing her, the left is trying to purge those of religious conscience completely out of the public square.  Scalia predicted this in his opinion.  How about the mayors who allowed their cities to become sanctuary cities resign FIRST, and then we can deal with Ms. Davis. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 12:04:57 PM (updated 9/4/2015 12:10:10 PM)

I think you will find pretty universal legal and political agreement that a decision by the Supremes is and has been interpreted for at least since the middle of the 19th century as superceding any extant laws which run counter to such decision.  Look at Brown vs Bd of Edu and Loving vs VA.  It took years for the states to change their laws to comply with the courts ruling (some probably still have not been removed from the books) but desegregation and inter-racial marriage went forward immediately despite southern efforts to block the changes.  I wish your theory was true so that any state that desired could ignore Citizens United which put a "for Sale" sign on the Congress and White House.

If we ever reach the point that we as a people decide we can ignore the decisions of the law courts we have renounced the rule of law and might as well tear up the Constitution.

As for the mayors of "sanctuary cities", if it can be shown that any action they took was counter to their oath of office to uphold the law, then they should resign or be impeached. The problem is, producing that solid evidence is a lot more difficult nut to crack than the nut in KY.

Name:	Council Rock Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 12:40:28 PM

Regarding sanctuary cites,  SF police refused an ICE detainer request.  The murderer chose that city precisely because of this rationale.  This goes straight to the mayor and council.  How hard would it be to prove?  Not very, just must have the will to prosecute a Dem mayor.  

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 1:39:52 PM (updated 9/4/2015 1:45:34 PM)

So you have no problem with the police and their refusal to cooperate with the feds.  If they were carrying out an illegal order of the mayor or council don't they share some of the blame.  To be sure the police are generally and usually correctly seen as the heros and the "liberal" elected officials as the bad guys by most conservatives...well if so why didn't they pull a Kim Davis?  See what I mean by it not being so cut and dried in the sanctuary cities situation?

It is instructive that you point out the "Democratic" mayor needs to be prosecuted for not following the law. Now be honest, would you call for the same action against a Republican Governor who refused to order state officials to abide by the gay marriage ruling? 

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 2:23:38 PM

Archie,

Dang I am uncomfortable when this happens, but I think you and I may see eye to eye on this issue. So,for starters just to see if we are on the same wave length, do you agree with the WH comment today when they put out a statement in regards to the arrest of Ms Davis, that "no one is above the law"?

Name:	Council Rock Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 2:25:22 PM

So you question why  the SF police force did not pull a Kim Davis?  Are you serious?  Leaving unprotected an entire urban jungle vs. not issueing a gay marriage license?  Sounds fairly equivalent to me.  The Kentuckty Legislature has not gotten around to writing new law that reflects the USSC opinion.  On the other hand, sanctuary cites are breaking written federal law.  

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Unreasonable comparision
Date:	9/4/2015 4:50:36 PM

I'd object to the comparision of Kim Davis to the sanctuary cities movement, they aren't nearly the same.   Ms. Davis' objections to performing her duties are based on her belief that her religion forbids her from doing so, and the outcome of this is that she feels entitled to enforce her religious principles on everyone she was elected to serve.   She was elected to serve everyone regardless of race, color, or creed.  

Imagine if an Amish Circuit clerk refused to issue driver's licenses, or an elected Muslim judge decided to preside over their court using Sharia Law.   If we put those examples in the mix, we'd see that the Davis case is simply about whether an official can enforce her narrow Christian beliefs on their constituents.... regardless of the consituent's religion.

The Sanctuary Cities movement has nothing to do with religious issues, IMO... but stems from city governments deciding to avoid using their resources to enforce federal immigration statues.  This is more akin to civil disobedience in protest of unworkable immigration laws, overcrowded jails, and overworked police forces.    

In the case of sanctuary cities, I don't think civil disobedience is a credible defense because elected officials don't have the right to be selective about which laws they enforce.

In the case of Ms. Davis, her religious beliefs are hers to choose and live by.   But her rights to swing her religious fist ends at the tip of the nose of people who want a marraige license.   To put it another way, she has rights... but not unlimited rights.... to her religious beliefs.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Where Is It Headed
Date:	9/4/2015 5:41:23 PM

She took an oath to uphold both the Kentucky and US Constitution. She is acting like George Wallace when he said Segregation Now, Tomorrow, and Forever at the entrance of U Bama. I always wondered when you take an oath and at the end say "So help me God" what the ramifications were if you later involked God's name in carrying out your offcial duties like she has. However, Wallace lost  and so will she. End of argument. 

In Florida, County Clerks can both issue a license and perform a marriage. While continuing to issue a license, some have discontinued performing all marriages since they feel uncomfortable which I find acceptable. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	My Two cents
Date:	9/4/2015 5:43:43 PM

Kim Davis belongs in jail and sanctuary cities should not exist.  I doubt her oath of office said anything about her following interpretation of the Bible and her personal beliefs taking precedence over the law. Something that wasn't mentioned here is that she has been married 4 times and is new to her version of Christian faith.  She said that she is prepared to take the consequences of her faith.  Well, a judge has made it possible for her to do just that.  Wonder how many years she'll last.

I don't get this whole sancturary city thing.  Whether it needs to be revised or removed, the U.S. has immigration laws.  It's not up to cities to decide that they will ignore those laws. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 6:34:40 PM (updated 9/4/2015 6:36:45 PM)

Yes I am serious as far as my question went.  I did not suggest that the police leave the city unprotected and at the mercy of the bad guys...I suggested that if they did not agree with what the higher ups instructed (do not turn in the illegals to ICe) regarding illegals, they could have done a Kim Davis...ignore the mayor and council and cooperate with the feds.  Take off your bias blinders and try to read a little more carefully.

Rude I absolutely agree that "nobody is above the law"...from a homeless private citizen to Kim Davis to Hillary Clinton to the president.  Now, the question is who gets to interpret the law and whether selective inforcement (or prosecution) is ever acceptable.  It certainly seems to be for bankers so why not for illegals.  I think Obama has the executive authority to selectively stop prosecutions or deportations of children of illegals who were brought here at an early age.  If the SCOTUS rules otherwise I will reluctantly say "ship em out". Kim Davis needs to do the same since the court has spoken.

Name:	waterph -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 6:50:52 PM

I agree with this. This would also apply to IRS, VA, Homeland Security, Dept. of Jusrice, and other Departmenrs in enforcing Federal Laws. Also included: San Francisco, Baltimore, etc.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Where Is It Headed
Date:	9/4/2015 8:17:20 PM

She took an oath to uphold both the Kentucky and US Constitution

I think there are some other officials who have taken similar oaths, especially to uphold the US Constition.  If imprisonment is the necessary punishment then we need to build a lot of new prisons.  I have been wanting to post this somewhere, whether facebook or other forums but it fits here

All laws matter

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/4/2015 10:26:19 PM (updated 9/4/2015 10:27:32 PM)

A registered Democrat with strong conservative family values.

Davis divorced in 1994, 2006 and 2008, court records show. 

She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband  their father was identified as her third husband, according to court records

Court records detail Kim Davis’ turbulent marital history: She has been married to her current husband twice, with a divorce and another husband in between.

She married her first husband, Dwain Wallace, when she was 18, and divorced him in 1994. 

She acknowledged in a 2008 divorce filing having had two children in 1994 while she was not married. 

In 1996, at age 30, she married Joe Davis for the first time. They divorced in 2006.

The next year, at 40 years old, Davis wed Thomas McIntryre, though their marriage lasted less than a year. She re-married Joe Davis in 2009.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/5/2015 7:07:57 AM (updated 9/5/2015 7:12:54 AM)

Gee, you would think that she wouldn't want to deny Bruce and Larry the same chance at marital bliss just one time that she has experienced so many times!   Some of you super Christians out there send this women the Bible verses that address out of wedlock sex and divorce and casting the first stone and loving your neighbor and rendering unto Ceasar etc etc etc....

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/5/2015 8:52:49 PM

Archie,

To continue the Davis conversation with you..............it  seems like we do agree that no one is above the law.....and in addition to the necessity for paying the penalty for disobeying the law in this case of the Democrat clerk Ms Davis.

Notwithstanding the fact that she and her lawyer may have a case to make on appeal based on their reading of the 10th and 13 th amendment..........I admire the courage of her convictions just like MLK and others during the civil rights era...............but I think she must bear the consequences of her civil disobedience as others did and still should.

Now to stay focused on the "consequences" issue.....with you being the advocate here for her "paying the price" I'd like to dig a little deeper and see how much zeal you have for others paying the price for disobedience in other circumstances.

Could you kindly point out to me where you have the same stated opinion on the forum or elsewhere in each of the following cases of laws being broken or ignored:

1) Despite several SCOTUS rulings over the years, the D.C. officials still will not issue concealed carry permits to its citizens

2) The ongoing failure of the feds to enforce federal drug laws in Colorado re: MARY JANE

3) The failure of the DOJ to enforce election laws in regards to the actions by the black panthers to intimidate voters at polling places back in '08 (I believe)

4) When prop 8 (DOMA) was passed in Calif the Democrat mayor Gavin Newsome openly defied state and federal law and used his power to force gov't clerks to issue gay marriage licenses. 3200 same sex couples got licenses in a 9 day period. Newsome justified his actions the same as Davis did citing his conscience and beliefs.......rather than deferring to the actual law of his state. He is now the Lt Gov of Calif rather than in jail. Where was your zeal?

5) Where is your outrage in regards to H Clinton and those laws regarding the proper handling of classified national security information?

6) and, on the immigration issue.......let's not deal with the emotional issue of anchor babies and the possible misreading of the 14 th amendment.......just focus on the failure of the Homeland Security chief to control the border from illegals who may come here TOMORROW? Please show me evidence of your demand for these officials doing the perp walk??

I could go on and on and on, but, if you could show me evidence of your consistent concern for equal enforcement across the board, I'll  be able to understand where you are coming from on the Davis case.

If you can't or won't address these specific cases now............well............I'll be left to conclude you're just a one trick pony and just like the WH you believe only progressives can break the law without paying the consequences. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/5/2015 11:56:13 PM (updated 9/5/2015 11:59:00 PM)

1/   DC should be issuing gun permits and it is my understanding that they are.  I do not agree with SCOTUS on this one but they have ruled

2/   The Feds have selectively chosen to not waste tax money and employee time trying to enforce federal law where the state has voted to go another direction. The law is being challanged in the courts and If the SCOTUS ever declares the CO law unconstitutional I will not change my opinion, but will say MJ has to go in CO.

3/   I see no more intimidation by 3 or 4 black thugs standing around the polling station than by the poll worker who always parked her car with the 2 "VOTe RePUBLICAN" bumper stickers at the front entrance to the polling station where I used to vote.  I complained about it to the polling station manager and he ignored me.  Guess he was a republican too.  GOP laws to make it more of a hassle to vote are much more problematic than the dreaded "Black Panthers".

4/  Prop 8 was being ajudicated at the time Newsome defied the law.  The law was eventually overturned by the courts.  If it had been upheld and he continued to defy the law he should have received the same treatment as Kim Davis.  Again, l would have not been pleased but once the guys wearing the black robes speak the BS ends.

5/  When and if the courts say that Hillary broke any National Security or other laws she should be treated as the court and legal statutes instruct.  Just because her GOP opponents and the bulk of this forum insist she is a lawbreaker does not make it so.

6/  The border should be sealed to the extend reasonable (Trump's wall is NOT reasonable!) .  If it can be shown that the immigration laws are being ignored by Homeland Security officials they should be legally dealt with.  If they are shown to be merely incompetent...well what else is new?  In fact there are far fewer illegals entering the country under Obama than under Bush.

Now Rude...can you point out ANY example of where you have expressed even disdain much less called for legal remedies against a Republican?  I know it was a long time ago, but where did you stand on Reagan's Iran / Contra problems...how about Cheney's outing of a CIA undercover operative (and she was in fact undercover until the VP of the US outed her)...I suspect if Joe Biden had done the same thing this forum would have exploded with demands for his impeachment.

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/7/2015 2:57:06 PM

Archie,

Thought you were an architect and not a lawyer...........so I will use lawyer language in my responses!

1) Nope, as of 6/30/15 DC is still fighting this issue in court to deny permits to carry......"even as the 20% increase in murder cases in the city since 1/1/15....65 homicides.....and 1 murder per day in the last two weeks." Following in the footsteps of other gun free zone cities for non-criminals.

2) So it's ok with you for gov't employes to ignore fed. laws with no penalty....but not so for one state employee in one state disobeying a state law?

3) Stay focused here now.....the BP's were breaking a fed election law. You ok with that? 

4) G. Newsome broke the law and should have been jailed til the outcome of the case or Calif changed the law. You wimped out on this one.

5) You better get your draft letter ready to denounce HC....... since according to the Wash Post Bryan Pagliano ( who helped HC set up her illegal private server and is taking the 5th in congress) "did not report the outside income (he recc'd from HC private funds) in the required personal financial disclosures he filed each year" He could be subject to fines, criminal prosecutions and sentencing. You think Trey Gowdy knows about this? You can get ahead of this one and denounce her now.

6) Stay focused Archie...several govenors have shown that laws are being ignored......they have video evidence for really dense adminstration officials to see. This is an easy call for you to make to demand the perp walk for Jeh J.

Ok here goes: Iran contra- If laws were broken the players should have done time, if they were found guilty and they lost on appeal......unless of course the gov't or Pres selectively chose not to prosecute or to issue a pardon.

Now, let's remember some things.....the US Congress and the Tower Comm found Pres RR knew nothing of the multiple programs......Ultimately the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a crime......Charges were brought against 5 people for support of the contras, and these charges were dropped...........14 Admin officials were indicted on lesser charges- 11 convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal........the rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned by GHWB using the power you're fond of....selective enforcing of the law by way of a pardon.

So your obsession with this 1979 issue....36 years ago tells me something about you.....so my question to you is to you is this: What is your gripe here.....that arms were sold to Iran or that the left ist socialist group which over threw their gov't had a target on their back from a R adminstration or that RR didn't agree with the DeM congress on the direction Nicaragua was going??

Val Plame CIA employee: Wrong!! You don't get out much do you? It has been accepted by everyone except the most rabid haters that Richard Armitage (sp?) the Cof S for your fav Republican Colin Powell, was the leaker of Val's name.

Archie.............you're a Progressive democrat......own it embrace it and be proud of it!!!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/7/2015 4:12:57 PM (updated 9/7/2015 5:13:51 PM)

1/   "Fighting this issue in court" is not the same thing as refusing to issue permits as ordered by the courts.  If they are refusing to do so without getting a court to say they can do so pending hearing of their appeal then that is not acceptable.  It was told by a Baltimore resident that DC was reluctantly issuing permits.

2/   Kim Davis was granted a stay of the original ruling during which she did not have to issue lic pending disposition of her appeal.. The appeal went against her and she continued to refuse.  She appealed to the Supremes and they refused to hear it...cased closed. The CO pot law is under appeal to the federal courts.  The feds have "selectively" decided not to expend resources on demanding that CO obey federal law instaed of state law until a Fed court issues a definitive ruling...a damn wise decision IMHO! As a conservative and state's rights supporter shouldn't you feel the same?

3/   I agree, they were breaking election law.  The question is was it worthy of spending money to charge them since there is no substantive proof that they caused anyone not to vote.  Now if you say yes throw them in the klink, then will you accompany me to the Cross Keys High School precinct next November and assist in my citizens arrest of that poll worker who at least as of 6 or 8 years ago continued to break election law by parking her partisan bumper stickers directly beside the door to the polls?  See what I mean by selective inforcement making some degree of sense?

4/   Newsome knew that the law was under appeal and chose to it ignore pending a decision. (If I recall correctly his actions were themselves challanged in court but the court refused to intervene).  Kim Davis did the same thing but when the appeal went against her she still refused to abide by the law.  Frankly, if the final prop 8 ruling had gone the other way in CA l seriously doubt the mayor would have exercised the same defiance Ms Davis did, but if he did he too should have been held in contemp.

5/   So now we are going to hold Hillary responsible for the financial indescretions of a consultant?  Who with any authority to do so has already decreed Hillary set up an "illegal" server...isn't that what is trying to decided?  I know you, Breitbart and Ted Cruz have so decreed, but, thankfully for America, niether of you will make the final decision!

6/   Several ststes have claimed that laws are being broken...again can we simply wait until the courts decide before we pass sentences.

Yes, I know that Reagan was "exonerated" by a commission, but if you believe he had no knowledge of what was going on then I hope you will admit he was not as on top of what was going on as a great a leader, which I'm sure consider him to have been, should be.  He was also came very close to being named an "unindicted co-conspirator" by the federal prosecutors but in the final charges he was not so named.  My gripe is that at the time our national policy was not to negotiate with terrorists for hostages or any other reason and it was against federal statute to give support to the Contras...The RR administration did both!  Perhaps nothing done by the president  was determined to be illegal, but he was sure sailing close to the wind...in fact a lot closer than Obama ever has.  At least Obama has an explanation that makes some legal sense whether or not the right wing agrees.  There were not any serious legal explanation even attempted regarding Iran / Contra.

Many people think Armitage outed Plame.  Many people think he did so by being careless.  More people think Dick Cheney also outed her.  More people think he did it out of malice to get back at her husband who offered evidence that was in fact true but not what Cheney wanted the world to see.

Here is the ultimate difference between you and me...you are convinced you have all the answers and are ready to act...I am willing to admit I do not have nearly all the answers and am willing to wait!

Name:	Council Rock Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/9/2015 12:20:02 PM

So Archie,

We now find out that North Carolina enacted not long after the SC ruling a law that exempted their magistrates from performing same sex marriages because it conflicted with their religious conscience.  So after all, one can in certain states, be exempt from fulfilling the duty they were appointed to do based upon First Amendment Religious Freedom guarantees.  Are you comfortable with this type of legislation?

Name:	Council Rock Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/9/2015 12:20:02 PM

So Archie,

We now find out that North Carolina enacted not long after the SC ruling a law that exempted their magistrates from performing same sex marriages because it conflicted with their religious conscience.  So after all, one can in certain states, be exempt from fulfilling the duty they were appointed to do based upon First Amendment Religious Freedom guarantees.  Are you comfortable with this type of legislation?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/9/2015 1:28:34 PM (updated 9/9/2015 1:35:29 PM)

No.  This new law will almost certainly be overturned.  Frankly I personally have no problem with an individual having a religious exemption as long as there is full time other individuals in the same office or business who will do the job.  In general the only person who I think can, in good conscience, use the religious exemption to refuse service is a clergy member.  If you are a govt employee charged with certain duties you should be willing to do those duties...if you are a private business licensed to serve all the public you should be required to serve ALL of the public.  Nobody is forcing you to stay in a job you have moral objections to.

Do you think a Muslim born in Saudi Arabia who lands a job with the DMV should be exempt from issuing licenses to women on religious grounds? 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/9/2015 6:24:10 PM

I think there is a big difference between performing a marriage ceremony and issuing a license to permit the ceremony to take place.   I can support someone not officiating at a marriage ceremony if it violates their religious belief; however, the license is only proof that documents(blood tests, divorce papers, birth certificates, etc) required by the state for the marriage have been presented and found acceptable.  And that shouldn't offend anyone's religious beliefs.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/9/2015 8:40:31 PM (updated 9/9/2015 8:49:43 PM)

Hound I think most people don't even realize that marriage is a government issued legal contract between 2 people as evidenced by the license and is not a religious ceremony. The license comes first and without the government issued license a preacher cannot marry you. You don't need a preacher to get married but you do need the license.  Nothing the SCOTUS has said will force any clergy person to complete a marriage contract if they don't want to nor will it require any religious group to change their dogma regarding marriage.  Now, will it mean a church must offer the same benefits to a gay couple...I hope so.  It is the same as a business serving the public being required to serve all the public.  If a church is going to offer benefits to its married employees, it must offer them to all employees that are recognized as married by temporal authority charged with issuing the license.

Now, I wonder when all these folks demanding religious freedom will be expressing their support of the Muslim flight attendant who was fired because she refused to serve alcohol claiming to do so violated the tenants of her religion.  None other than the Rev Michael Huckabee passed on an opportunity to do so today.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Kim Davis
Date:	9/9/2015 9:00:27 PM

Can an prospective employee in Davis's department be legally asked if they support gay marriage and if they will issue a license to gays? If they asnwer yes and are not hired is that a discrimination suit by the Federal Goverment? 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Architect
Date:	9/10/2015 9:26:49 AM

Yes, I have noticed that people tend to forget that marriage is a legal contract between two people.  As I'm sure you know, in much of the world there are two ceremonies - the civil one that makes the marriage legal and the religious one in the church.

I personally think Kim Davis has had her 15 minutes and now we should let her fade back to obscurity.  But that won't happen because she is now a tool of the political Christian Right.  And she is being represented by a law firm with ties to the Christian Right. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Architect
Date:	9/10/2015 9:40:25 AM (updated 9/10/2015 9:55:00 AM)

Correct on all points Madame Hound!   And I am sure Kimmy baby has a book deal in the works too.  Free enterprise is a wonderous system!!

Just an aside. I'm not sure about any other states except GA and FL, but in FL Notary Publics are able to perform civil marriage ceremonies.  I have a friend in FL who is a N P and loves to do weddings on the beach...she always gets $75 and usually a free meal or two plus some adult beverages!!