Those lovely Christians


A lesbian couple applied for a marriage license today at the Rowan County clerk’s office in Morehead, Kentucky, the first same-sex couple to do so since clerk Kim Davis returned to work. CNN covered what happened before and when they went into the office.


The office was packed with anti-gay Christians who started yelling to them that marriage was between one man and one woman and that they were going to hell.

Moments later, the couple entered the clerk’s office and were met by a rowdy crowd of Kim Davis supporters.

“Your sin is going to be your demise!” a man yelled. “Because he loves you, he is calling you to himself today… You can’t satisfy yourself, only God can satisfy your needs!”

“It’s an oxymoron!” the man continued. “It is a lie from the pit of Hell that destroys those who participate in homosexual sodomy, and destroys nations that approve of that! So young ladies, today God is calling you to himself!

Ignoring the fact that the man did not seem to know what the word ‘oxymoron’ means, the smiling deputy clerk Brian Mason (who had earlier vowed to issue licenses even if Davis objected) took the information and gave them their license and it was over.

Marney Maness arrived at the office to update her vehicle registration. She had to conduct the common, mundane task surrounded by a sea of reporters lining the clerk’s counter. The room was relatively quiet until Elizabeth Johnston, a same-sex marriage opponent from Ohio, chastised deputy Mason, saying “it’s a shame that you’re breaking the Kentucky law”.

Mason responded: “That’s your opinion.”

Down the opposite end of the counter, Maness jumped into the fray, telling Johnston: “But they aren’t breaking Kentucky law. They’re abiding by the constitution of the United States.”

Apparently Kim Davis spent the day in her office with the blinds drawn. But her protest has had one effect. Some state legislators are questioning whether the office of county clerk is worth the time and money at all.

Comments

  1. Lesbian Catnip says

    Some state legislators are questioning whether the office of county clerk is worth the time and money at all.

    Again, still trying to take in the fact that clerks are elected at all. They would be a lot cheaper if appointed. I have a job with similar authority as Davis and make maybe 25,000 USD a year.

  2. mynax says

    I don’t suppose there’s any hope that law enforcement officers would respond to a complaint of disturbing the peace, or for disrupting government functions….

  3. says

    @Lesbian Catnip #1 – History. As far as I can tell….

    During the colonial era, clerks were typically appointed by the governor, who was himself often appointed by either the colony’s proprietors or by the Crown. The position tended to be a dumping ground for underlings who had screwed up badly, or a place where distant family members could get a sinecure. Thus, county clerks commonly had no ties to the communities and were often unsuited to the position.

    With statehood, most of the former colonies switched to electing county clerks. To run for office, clerks had to be eligible to vote, and at the time, all of the states required that an elector own property within the jurisdiction. This guaranteed that the person would have local ties, and made it much more likely that the office holder would be literate.

    Most states switched to appointed clerks decades ago. Most of the holdouts seem to be in the South, where racist voting restrictions served to keep county clerks white.

  4. otrame says

    What I haven’t figured out is how a county clerk in a relatively rural county in Kentucky gets 80k a year.

  5. says

    Thoise people were loitering in the building and interfering with clerks doing their jobs and citizens trying to obtain services. Why didn’t the employees call the police and have the trespassers arrested and removed?

  6. EigenSprocketUK says

    Weird to be recording and broadcasting all the personal details which they’re giving the deputy clerk. Seems to be setting them up for a doxxing. But I guess the only potentially private room was already occupied … by Kim Davis.

  7. StevoR says

    Arguably, neither the word -“lovely” nor “christian” actually applies I’d say.

    ***
    … We forget the point of the parable is entirely vitiated by the common phrase “good” Samaritan for that has cast a false light on who the Samaritans were. . . To the Jews [of Jesus’ time – ed.] the Samaritans were not good. They were hated, despised, contemptible heretics with whom no good Jew would have anything to do. Again, the whole point is lost through non-translation.

    …The Parable of the Good Samaritan clearly teaches that there is nothing parochial in the concept “neighbour,” that you cannot confine your decency to your own group and your own kind. All mankind, right down to those you most despise are your neighbours.”

    – Pages 266-270 Isaac Asimov, “Lost in Non-translation” in ‘Magic’ anthology Harper-Collins, 1996.

  8. says

    The office was packed with anti-gay Christians who started yelling to them that marriage was between one man and one woman and that they were going to hell.

    These are the “god is love” people, right? Just checking.

  9. Reginald Selkirk says

    saying “it’s a shame that you’re breaking the Kentucky law”.
    Mason responded: “That’s your opinion.”

    He’s being overly deferential. Not all opinions are equally valid.

    I think the loud preaching yahoo should be removed from the room. There is plenty of space outside for protesting, loud speaking like that is disruptive to an office work environment.

  10. Crimson Clupeidae says

    Imagine any other group who disagreed with something the government was doing like this. I can’t think of any other group that wouldn’t be thrown out or arrested for obstructing these people from doing their job.

    Fucking asshole xians. Someone should start doing interviews and asking them about all the laws in Leviticus…..

  11. Ben Finney says

    Ignoring the fact that the man did not seem to know what the word ‘oxymoron’ means

    Maybe the man doesn’t know what it means. But in this case I’m pretty sure he’s expressing exactly what it means: his premise is that “marriage” as a term has the specific definition (“… between one man and one woman”) he prefers, and so if anything outside that is labelled “marriage”, that is therefore an oxymoron.
    Now, what this man clearly doesn’t appreciate is that marriage has long been not just between one man and one woman, and (more importantly) we get to decide, as a society, what it means now and in the future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *