Win.
But really, that’s the really hideous thing about fundamentalism/inerrancy: as a doctrinal system, it makes Bible-lawyering necessary, inevitable, and far too commonplace. It makes Christianity all about a dense system of rules, resembling nothing so much as the Pharisaism that Jesus routinely criticizes in the Gospels, rather than being about a loving God.
Glad I read this before I responded, as I was going to say pretty much the same thing. It was Jesus himself who was so big on the spirit of the law.
I even have a translation of the Bible that sees the “under the law” phrase used by Paul as meaning a legalistic version of the Law. (It’s pitched for Jewish converts to Christianity. It even uses Yiddish. I like it for the Hebrew-transliterated names.)
That’s precisely the evidence I use to say those who say he’s done nothing are wrong. Why are they upset if he’s done nothing?
Before these were platitudes. Now the sexual stuff are platitudes.
No clue about the Vatican Embassy, but there is a gift shop in the actual Vatican, just outside the entrance to the Vatican Museum. They do sell rosaries blessed by the Pope.
Her charlatan, homo-obsessed lawyer said today that the altered licenses are valid. I’m not sure what prompted this, it’s just quoted in short articles, but I’m guessing the quotes may have come from their response to the last court action where couples filed contempt charges for her alterations. Unfortunately, video interviews and other public statements they’ve made about them being invalid probably don’t count as evidence.
So does he bless each individually, by the crate, or just flings a quick sign of the cross at the warehouse every once in a while ? More importantly, is there a refund policy for substandard blessings ?
Yes there is. Any purchaser who can prove scientifically that the well blessed items work better than the poorly blessed items gets a refund.
The article I read did state this was in response - and that they were ‘valid because the govener said they’d recognize the marriages’ - which is not the same as declaring the certificates valid.
Davis Lawyer is using yet another misquote or poorly framed response - and its today because this was likely the last day to file a response (I was wondering why Bunning had’nt ruled on the cases yet).
I do believe that Bunning will use the much publicized quotes of “not worth the paper their printed on” against Davis case - and I can’t wait to read the response.
What the Gov’ said was that the marriages would be recognized - and this was also before the “by order of the fed court” shenanigans. the first few that were done did not have the extent of alterations as the last ones (after she was released). I doubt he was, at the time, speaking to the specifics of the alterations.
In any event - the certificates do not meet the statutes as written - which is the case finally brougth before the judge.
What I am wondering - these certs are only valid for 30 days (last I recall) - the marraige had to take place and be recorded within x days of issuance - and I haven’t heard tale of any of these couples getting married or the potential response to these certs being filed - which is supriseing (to me) - but likely held up due to the “shenanigans”.
[
](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kim-davis-lawyers-no-need-change-marriage-licenses-after-controversy-n443861):rolleyes:
Damn, that’s harsh. They really get you coming and going, don’t they ? 
Poor Bunning. This case has turned into a huge clusterfuck regarding the interplay of state and federal law (leaving aside the already-extant clusterfuck of issues about public officials’ freedom of conscience and what not).
[It turns out Kim Davis also hates email (and prolly also nosy reporters):
](Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage | Techdirt)
When the emails are requested as emails and not hardcopies, Mrs. Davis balks and claims “I do not have the means to transfer electronic”. She continues to insist that she will not provide the emails except as printed material and for the fees already delineated.
Her tone changes almost immediately to a very authoritarian “my way or the highway” stance as Miss Musgrave continues to try and get the emails as emails. The back and forth grows more contentious with each exchange, as shown in the linked story.
Ultimately, Miss Musgrave will get the information, however circuitous and cumbersome a route she has to take:[
](Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage | Techdirt)
So in the end, Mrs. Davis is being an asshole just to be an asshole. This seems to be a pattern of behavior for her, IMO.
Kentucky law actually requires that FOIA requests be responded to by mail or by in-person inspection, so it’s not really Davis’ fault.
Meh. She could mail a thumb drive or CD.
and I’m really hoping he takes the time to do it right -
by statute, those licenses are invalid - period.
but that doesn’t mean the state would not reconginze the marriages performed under them.
That’s true. But she’s a stupid old hag and probably doesn’t know what those are.
Tell me where the Bible says it’s permissible for a Christian to use email.
Or cars or planes or phones or electric lights or what’s your point?
…or really loud airplanes?
Actually, your link doesn’t say that. Your link is to Ky law 61.872, last amended in 1994, about the right to inspect actual physical records at the government agency’s office.
In 61.874(2)(a), it says that the agency will make electronic or hard copies, depending on which the person asks for (unless the original is hard copy. They aren’t required to make electronic copies of hard copies but that’s not applicable here).