Forget that piddly Kim Davis nonsense.

[Elok]

Because THIS guy really knows how to be a jackass to prove a political point. It's creative, bizarre, sarcastic, and it completely screws over people who have no relation whatever to the controversy in question. Basically he's saying that, since the Supreme Court says we have to let gays marry, he can't let a straight couple divorce. Since, in essence, SCOTUS has said we are incompetent to say what is or is not marriage. This is so utterly weird I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Bravo, you wack-job. Bravo.

http://www.fox17.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Tennessee-Judge-Rules-Against-Couple-39-s-Divorce-Cites-SCOTUS-Gay-Marriage-Decision-199334.shtml

[giblets]

Elok is a nerd.

[Elok]

Okay, have I done something that actually bothers/offends you, or are you posting asinine static purely for the joy of posting asinine static?

[grumbler]

There's nothing to wrap one's mind around. This guy is an elected official who is making a political statement at the expense of peoples' lives. Likely he is doing it to get re-elected. Sure, he took an oath not to do this, but being a liar isn't an impediment to getting bigots to vote for you.

[giblets]

Okay, have I done something that actually bothers/offends you, or are you posting asinine static purely for the joy of posting asinine static?

Your dismissive attitude toward people who are mad at Kim Davis is kind of annoying.

[Elok]

Ah. I can see why people are mad at her, honestly, but in terms of sheer asshattery this guy puts her in the shade (the dismissiveness in the OP was meant ironically). This doesn't even make bad sense. He's not going to get a lucrative book deal out of this, and it doesn't make any kind of coherent statement. It's like if I got mad at you, so I started throwing live squirrels at Grumbler. Dadaist politics.

[giblets]

You're not conservative enough to understand it. Try bashing your head against a wall a few thousand times and then see if it makes more sense.

[Elok]

The thing is, Davis is an unhinged zealot to all appearances, but her actions at least fit, however poorly, into a narrative: "I stand up for my beliefs, knowing I will face punishment for it." This only appeals to the dumber and more knee-jerk-reactionary half of the SoCon crowd, but they can follow the logic, and so can you, albeit only far enough to see the enormous holes in it.

Where's the narrative here? He's literally making a joke of the law here. He's not sacrificing himself, except insofar as he will probably lose his job for this. We have no tradition of civil resistance based on turning your own profession into a snarky parody of itself. It reads like a clever soundbite to extreme reactionaries, but I can't believe anybody's going to rally to his side over this bit of dick-fu.

Then again, I've been wrong before.

[Egbert]

It looks like a "statement" or "soundbite, not necessarily political. There is so little information in the article that one can't rule out the possibility he has made a genuine error in legal reasoning, possibly stemming from pedantry. OTH I am not American and don't know if he really has a point, in law.

This decision seems absurd. His motives are by no means clear from the article.

[Egbert]

Okay, have I done something that actually bothers/offends you, or are you posting asinine static purely for the joy of posting asinine static?

Good idea Elok.

I am placing this pointless poast purely for the joy of posting asinine static.

[giblets]

Braindead is a nerd.

[dannubis]

Poly at work...

[Sava]

I've been wrong before.

first thing you've said that makes any sense

[The Mad Monk]

Implying that his mockery of the judge in question makes no sense. Good to know you support judges denying divorces for the sake of being a douche, Douche.

[Sava]

hahah wut