Perspectives: Kim Davis, power of moral truth

This photo, made available by the Carter County Detention Center, shows Kim Davis. The Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk went to jail Thursday for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, but five of her deputies agreed to comply with the law, ending a two-month standoff, Aug. 3, 2015 | AP Photo courtesy of Carter County Detention Center, photo extended at left-right ends; St. George News

OPINION – It looks like the warnings about how the Supreme Court’s imposition of a new definition of marriage could affect religious freedoms weren’t wrong after all.

The implications of activist justices enabling the creation of new definitions for words that have endured for centuries go far beyond the subject of marriage.

Writer Tom Eddlem cautions:

We employ words with fixed meanings in order to bind leaders down with the chains of a Constitution. If they can change the meaning of the word marriage, they’ll soon be changing the meaning of ‘free speech,’ the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ and the right to a trial by jury.

Considering how often the highest court’s decisions seem to conveniently move in a direction favorable to homosexual behavior, abortion and forced association, this isn’t a misplaced concern.

In the meantime, the jailing of Rowan County clerk Kim Davis constitutes another clear milestone on society’s headlong race toward cultural decline.

Read more: Jailed clerk’s attorney says marriage licenses for gays are void

As a county clerk, Davis has taken a stand against personally facilitating same-sex marriage by refusing to issue any marriage licenses whatsoever. She cites her personal conscience and her religious beliefs in right and wrong as reasons why she has done so.

As an elected official, the issuance of marriage licenses is but one of a myriad of duties Davis has been faithfully performing. It’s not the sole reason for her office.

If the same-sex couples who wanted a Kentucky marriage license were really just trying to obtain the state’s permission to be considered married, they could simply have gone to another clerk in another county and received their license.

But that’s never been the goal of militant same-sex marriage supporters. Instead, they are using the force of law to coerce acceptance and participation from anyone who will not publicly accept homosexuality as normal and righteous behavior.

Davis is refusing to play along with the politically correct deception that demands we pretend that same-sex coupling is equivalent to the natural pairing of man and woman which can create new life.

In doing so, she’s exhibiting the power of moral truth that Alexander Solzhenitsyn described when he wrote:

The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.

It’s also telling that Solzhenitsyn said:

To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth, you must sit in jail.

Nothing is more threatening to fanatical social justice warriors than a person invoking a standard of absolute truth that transcends the authority of government.

This is why totalitarians of every stripe have always sought to suppress and eliminate religion from their utopian societies. They know that allegiance to a higher power than party or state is a competing moral authority.

Moral authority, coupled with defiance of bad laws and policies, has been responsible for uprooting much of the most entrenched evil that has attended human history.

It starts with people who are more concerned about not placing their souls in jeopardy than they are about winning over the masses.

For instance, slavery, Jim Crow laws, and even the holocaust were all legal under the governments who enforced them. Individuals and public officials who flouted the Fugitive Slave Act did so out of a sense of moral truth that slavery was wrong.

Those who defiantly sat at segregated lunch counters and other places they were forbidden did so out of a sense of personal morality that could not be compromised.

Individuals and families that hid Jews or who spoke out against the Third Reich risked their lives because of religious convictions that they would not deny.

All were publicly criticized and denounced by others who insisted that they “follow the law” or else. Over time, they were all vindicated and recognized as having taken a principled stand against what others feared to call evil.

Because they were unwilling to ignore their consciences and committed to living moral truth, evil was eventually overcome.

They didn’t have to be perfect people to make a discernible difference. They simply needed to have a sense of right and wrong and the courage to abide by it.

Lawyers for the couples who sued to force Davis into issuing them a license begged the judge who imprisoned her to force her compliance by fines instead. They rightly feared that putting her in jail for refusing to deny beliefs held by millions of others might reflect badly on their client’s cause.

They were correct.

Accusations of intolerance directed at Davis are currently being drowned out by the unmistakable clamor of religious liberty and personal conscience being demolished.

How this will all shake out remains to be seen. As weird as things seem to be getting, all is not lost.

Mankind has seen a lot of folly come and go throughout human history. The traditional institution of a man and a woman producing children in a lifelong relationship has remained the norm in virtually every society, whether advanced or primitive.

It’s not likely to be rendered obsolete through social imperatives imposed via bad court decisions.

Bryan Hyde is a radio commentator and opinion writer in Southern Utah. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.

Related posts

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @youcancallmebry

Copyright St. George News, LLC, 2015, all rights reserved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • BIG GUY September 7, 2015 at 8:27 am

    As an individual, Kim Davis is free to express her disapproval of same sex marriage just as Bryan has in this opinion article. But as an elected public official, she is obligated to perform faithfully all actions required of her by law. We are governed by law and she is flouting the law.

    • jaybird September 7, 2015 at 9:58 am

      So true. Thats what her state salary pays her to do. A city clerk isnt paid for her political/religious views. Otherwise, for a 4 time divorcee, she may not have even qualified for the job in the first place.

    • GrandmaB September 7, 2015 at 11:04 am

      Hear, Hear!

      • native born new mexican September 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm

        God bless the clerk a million times over. She is a brave lady and doing the right thing. So glad to see her stand up and to see Bryan support her.

        • 42214 September 7, 2015 at 4:25 pm

          So the Sheriff of the Kentucky county is also a religious zealot and issues an order to his deputies not to cite or arrest any christians because of his devout beliefs. His beliefs are that christians are good people who will do the right thing by merely being asked and arrest is not necessary to bring about desired reform. You OK with that? If not, what is the difference between the Sheriff and the Clerk?

        • mesaman September 7, 2015 at 6:18 pm

          You will open the gate for all the weirdos, kinkos, oddballs, geeks and nerds, even democrats, to take aim at your comment. But, not to be uncounted; I am with you all the way. Gays, OK, gay marriage, never.

        • megan.ekstrom September 13, 2015 at 11:55 pm

  • anybody home September 7, 2015 at 9:47 am

    “We employ words with fixed meanings in order to bind leaders down with the chains of a Constitution.”

    Bryan, you quoted this and I wonder — is this the same Constitution that allows you the right to express your opinion here? “Chains of a Constitution?”

    Then you quote one of our great writers, Solzhenitsyn, on moral courage to defend your view. Shame on you. Don’t try to equate the stubborn behavior of a newly come-to-Jesus but formerly immoral woman who wants to make a spectacle of herself by ignoring the law of the land with Solzhenitsyn and what he stood for. Siberia is whole lot colder than a jail in Kentucky.

    Kim Davis is not suffering anything and her best-selling tell-all book will be out before you know it, “Religion Denied: My Ordeal as a County Clerk.” Wait for it.

    She is not yet a criminal, the judge made that clear. She is in contempt of court and that is not a criminal act. Just a media-attention getting act. People, this woman is a middle-aged Kentucky clerk who refuses to uphold the duties of her elected office, not blinking Joan of Arc.

    • BIG GUY September 7, 2015 at 10:50 am

      ANYBODY, Obama and Holder refused “to uphold the duties” of their respective offices when they refused to defend Bill Clinton’s DOMA in front of the Supreme Court, clearly “just a media-attention getting act.” Laws are laws. All government officials are duty bound to administer and defend them regardless of their personal convictions. If they are unwilling, they should resign as just as Kim Davis should resign.

      • maxprof September 7, 2015 at 12:56 pm

        Sorry BIG GUY< these situations are not remotely similar. No administration has a duty to actively DEFEND a law. Their duty is only to OBEY it, which the Obama administration did. On the other hand, Kim Davis is actively disobeying the law.

        • anybody home September 7, 2015 at 3:38 pm

          Thank you, MaxProf…Your clarification was needed and to the point.

    • Roy J September 7, 2015 at 1:02 pm

      Applying Solzhenitsyn here does, in fact, apply. There are so many instances from the Gulag alone that could be brought to bear that the point is moot.

      • anybody home September 7, 2015 at 3:35 pm

        We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

        • Roy J September 7, 2015 at 4:30 pm

          If you want to call it that, but Solzhenitsyn’s position can be easily inferred by those who happen to have read him exhaustively. Those who have not, of course, will remain ignorant, as per the norm.

          • anybody home September 8, 2015 at 1:45 pm

            Well, don’t count me among the ones who have not. And I still don’t agree with you. (You’re kinda pompous, Roy.)

  • McMurphy September 7, 2015 at 10:49 am

    I agree with most of what Hyde said as it applies to individuals acting on their own behalf. It is different when an elected official is acting in an official capacity. Then they are engaged in the peoples business and should do it as the law or public policy require. If Kim Davis cannot perform her duties due to her own moral convictions she should resign. That standard should apply to any person whether elected or govt employee or employee in a private business. Hyde mentions the use of law enforcement and military forces to enforce what we today consider morally reprehensible acts. If the persons doing the enforcing had resigned there would have been no enforcement.
    Kim Davis should not be in jail; she should been fined enough to cause her to either comply with the laws or resign.

  • GrandmaB September 7, 2015 at 11:00 am

    “Moral authority coupled with defiance of bad policies has been responsible for uprooting much of the most entrenched evil that has attended human history.”

    I read that and then clicked to read the article. If he had been talking about the couples that wanted to get married, then this statement would have been accurate.

    This mans mind is truly amazing, to compare this woman to slaves, and later the Jews in WWII is a twist of logic that would make Hitler proud, is so disgusting as to make me want to vomit. Hyde, you are as stupid as you are ignorant. Anyone with half a brain would have not fallen into this stupid, stupid trap of arrogance and bigotry. Your religion is showing. Tuck your garments in.

    “Accusations of intolerance directed at Davis are currently being drowned out by the unmistakable clamor of religious liberty and personal conscience being demolished.”

    This is still a free country. Not a theocracy. Separation of church and state. Remember. You have not won yet, and you will not win. I promise you that.

    These gentlemen, who refused to let this bigoted, hate filled whore chase them to another town to get their marriage license, truly have the “moral authority.” They are fighting to defeat the deliberate prejudice and hatred that this woman embodies. This is not a religious job this woman holds. She does not work in a church, rectory or temple. She works in a freaking secular government office.

    Marriage is not a religious institution. It NEVER was. It is a secular one for the sole purpose of allowing contracts between individuals who want to spend their lives together, and who want to benefit from that relationship.

    This woman has never, not for a day in her life, experienced the hatred that Rosa Parks did and to compare herself to that movement, or for you, dim wit Bryan Hyde, to further the comparison is just proof of your lack of intelligence, taste and ability to discern grandstanding for a political purpose, from true rebelling against an entrenched evil.

    Hatred is evil. Forcing your beliefs (when yours are not being impacted in any way) on others is EVIL! Bigotry is Evil.

    You and Davis are engaging, you in this article, in the well used and sometimes effective strategy of screaming “foul” when you are the ones committing the foul. It is you who are denying civil rights to individuals. So scream loud and long enough that your “religious beliefs and rights” are being denied you, WHEN THEY ARE NOT, you think you will win again. It is getting old. And people are aware of the fallacies.

    Your an idiot for trying it again. The tortured logic. The fallacious comparisons. You should be ashamed. And this news organization should fire you for engaging in adolescent journalism.

    • fun bag September 7, 2015 at 11:16 am

      lol, let’s see if the perspectives idiot replies. Usually he does the hit’n’run mormon troll strategy. The idiot has a huge ego and nothing to back it up. He thinks he’s god’s gift to the world because some idiot hired him to do an obscure local kook-radio show (which i’ve never heard btw). Maybe the idiot should’ve been a weather man, LOL’d

    • anybody home September 7, 2015 at 3:41 pm

      Hyde is the spinmaster supreme and will twist anything to suit his point, cherry-picking his endless stream of right-wingnuts.

  • GrandmaB September 7, 2015 at 11:11 am

    I wonder how all you bigoted Church goers out there would feel about a Muslim woman refusing to sell you your alcohol for religious reasons; or a Friend refusing to sell you a gun for religious reasons. There are hundreds more. I love the one where this woman, Davis, was stoned for being a whore and adulterer.

    • BIG GUY September 7, 2015 at 1:28 pm

      GRANDMAB, your examples make no sense. No believing Muslim would work in a liquor store; no one who opposes gun sales would work in a firearms store. Try again. There are better examples of your point.
      You imply all church goers are bigoted. Your comment loses credibility when you make such a blanket statement. Obama, Martin Luther King, and Abraham Lincoln along with billions of others are/were regular church goers. Undoubtedly there are plenty of bigoted church goers (Jeremiah Wright comes to mind), but your lack of perspective and civility are showing.

      • GrandmaB September 8, 2015 at 6:56 am

        There are Muslim women working in grocery stores, and there are women of all religious types working in the box stores that sell guns. A better example would have been the Amish issuing car registrations, since they don’t believe in motorized vehicles.

        And your are right, it is not right to make blanket statements.

        Hmmmmmm, lets see. How many church members made a hue and cry against the bigotry when the church was supporting Prop 8 in California. Don’t remember seeing any.

        Big Guy, I should be civil. You are right. Unfortunately, the members of your church are not civil. My granddaughter was attending Young Women’s. She is not a member, but her family in Nephi all are, so she was trying. She got into an altercation with some of the other girls. They accused her of lying. She was not. The teachers came out to her home to talk to her mom about the problems. They flat out told her mother that they would believe the other girls, because they were members, before they would my granddaughter. Needless to say, any and all respect I had was gone. My granddaughter will never go back. Civility is not something local church members understand. This is not an isolated incident. Converts, on the other hand, aren’t so arrogant in their perfection.

  • wilbur September 7, 2015 at 11:13 am

    “These gentlemen, who refused to let this bigoted, hate filled w**** chase them to another town to get their marriage license, truly have the “moral authority.”

    No, they just wanted their 15 minutes of fame, and maybe a chance at a cash lottery prize for their “emotional distress” and violated “civil rights”.

    • GrandmaB September 7, 2015 at 12:03 pm

      Fighting for civil rights seems to have a higher moral high ground than trying to use you secular, governmental job to push your religion or punish people who don’t belong to the same religion, or no religion, as you do. Even if it is just “15 minutes of fame.” Good for them. I’m sure that if she had just given them the license, there would have been no fame at all. Imagine that.

      • BIG GUY September 7, 2015 at 1:29 pm

        GRANDMAB, you are right on with this comment.

        • GrandmaB September 8, 2015 at 6:59 am

          Thank you. I really do try to be civil. Most of the time.

  • Knot September 7, 2015 at 11:40 am

    Since when do we hold elected officials to the letter of the law?? We see all presidents of past and present only uphold the laws they want to. If they upheld all the laws we wouldn’t have the illegal alien problem we have today. If they upheld all the laws and the constitution then it would have been up to the states individually to decide on same sex marriage. Sovereignty was supposed to be the protection afforded to the states to keep the federal government from ruling everything.
    Btw, I am not against same sex marriage.

  • Roy J September 7, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    I was just reading some comments on this from a wise old guy I know who points out that within the provisions of the law, (in the case of Obergefell) it is entirely possible to refuse to perform these services without resorting to an individual’s religious rights. That is because SCOTUS performed an act of judicial legislation with this case, which is both illegal and outside the scope of the Court’s judicial powers. It is really pointless to argue this matter at all, since the opposing side has got to resort to touchy feely arguments about what they think the law ought to be and how government ought to work, in order to get what they want. A careful appraisal of our laws and government will support the above understanding that the Obergefell precedent is extralegal.

    • maxprof September 7, 2015 at 1:06 pm

      Simply calling it judicial legislation, doesn’t make it so. Can you articulate a reason for thinking it is? Is Hobby Lobby judicial legislation? How about Citizens United?

      • Roy J September 7, 2015 at 1:55 pm

        Anyone who read the dissenting opinions in this case, in addition to those of the majority, can easily detect a difference in kind. As for judicial legislation, I am content to refer you to Robert Bork on the subject. And no, until I see the signs of somebody exercising their reflection and intellect, I am not going to bother articulating my reasons. I am simply tired of doing so.

        • maxprof September 7, 2015 at 2:07 pm

          You are a slippery one, Roy J.

          • anybody home September 7, 2015 at 3:44 pm

            Ah, you’re so right, MaxProf…Slippery indeed. And his response – “Sigh.”

        • maxprof September 7, 2015 at 2:11 pm

          Too tired, or too vacuous?

          • Roy J September 7, 2015 at 2:56 pm


          • anybody home September 8, 2015 at 1:48 pm

            We’re the underlings and Roy doesn’t deign to respond. (Curtsy.)

      • BIG GUY September 7, 2015 at 2:35 pm

        MAXPROF, neither Hobby Lobby nor Citizens United legislated from the bench. Both interpreted existing Federal law in specific situations. Hobby Lobby established a boundary between Obamacare’s mandates and religious freedom. Citizens United affirmed that all corporations (and unions for that matter), not just those that owned media outlets, have a right to political speech, overturning portions of the McCain-Feingold Act.
        By contrast, Obergefell created a new right to same sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act defined which marriages the Federal government would recognize for purposes of Federal benefits and reaffirmed states’ rights to do likewise, but said nothing per se about the legality of same sex marriage. Using the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause as a carte blanche, SCOTUS not only overturned a portion of DOMA but created a new right, just as it had in Roe vs. Wade. Both decisions are, and will continue to be, controversial since they impinge on highly sensitive social and religious issues that legislators are unwilling to address for political reasons.

        • maxprof September 7, 2015 at 4:57 pm

          Thoughtful response BIG GUY (unlike some others I could mention).

          However, I don’t agree with you on the differences (at least the ones you mention), between Citizen’s United (CU) and Hobby Lobby on the one hand, and Obergefell on the other. As you say CU overturned portions of the McCain-Feingold Act, but it also overruled its own precedent–Austin (1990) and McConnell (2003)– in expanding 1st Amendment rights for corporations; Obergefell didn’t explicitly overturn Section 2 of DOMA, but its ruling essentially supersedes it. It also affirmed a right to same-sex marriage that had already been recognized by every circuit court of appeals save one, that had ruled on the issue.

          I would argue that if Obergefell was judicial “legislation” then so was CU, if not more so.

          As for Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS did far more than draw a boundary, as you described it; it created a religious freedom for corporate actors. (But, I suppose as a practical matter, drawing a boundary between government action and individual freedom, is establishing a right.)

          And regarding your point about judicial impingement on “highly sensitive social and religious issues that legislators are unwilling to address,” that is what SCOTUS has often done, to wit, Brown, Loving, and Lawrence to mention a few.

          Maybe what has been called judicial legislation is what has also been called judicial activism. I argue that whichever you call it, if Obergefell is an example of it, the certainly Hobby Lobby and CU are, too.

          Thanks for reading.

    • BIG GUY September 7, 2015 at 1:42 pm

      ROY J, Roe vs. Wade also borders on being extralegal, a SCOTUS decision with a very weak legal foundation as acknowledged by a number of liberal legal scholars. It was based on some notional “right to privacy” that isn’t supported by the Constitution, another “right” created out of thin air.
      I my mind, the primary justification for Obergefell is the legal and administrative mess that was brewing when some states legalized same sex marriage while others didn’t.

      • Roy J September 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm

        BIG GUY,
        I agree with you on both points. The state and federal issue in this is of primary importance, and it is a mess.

      • maxprof September 7, 2015 at 2:27 pm

        There may be some disagreement on the right of privacy as a penumbral constitutional right, but in Roe it was more than “notional.” In fact, there is SCOTUS precedent for the right dating back to 1923 in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska. Also, don’t ignore the 9th Amendment. And what can be more private than one’s right to their beliefs than secured in the 1st Amendment?

        • Roy J September 7, 2015 at 2:55 pm

          Well, I suppose all moral laws are malleable, since they depend on human beings.

    • native born new mexican September 7, 2015 at 1:57 pm

      You are correct Roy. The supreme court has put it’s self in the position of a dictator. When people say the clerk has to obey the law; I say what law? The supreme court made a decision. ( a hotly debated decision even among their own members.) They did not make a law. Only an elected legislative body can make a law. Kentucky has a law that is a real law. The supreme court decision is not and never will be a law. Bryan makes a point- right is right and wrong is wrong. Homosexuality is immoral and very wrong. No amount of law making will change that. That has been decided by the laws of nature and nature’s God. I don’t care what name anyone on this web site wants to call me; you can’t change the truth with your name calling. I will stand with truth and morality and I am right before God for doing that. I am not worried about that clerk even though I pray everyday for her because she has God on her side. I am sorry for the cleansing that is coming soon to this nation because of the wicked country we have become but it is coming and soon. Now have fun with your insults and your name calling.

      • native born new mexican September 7, 2015 at 2:01 pm

        Two of the supreme court justices had no right to be making this decision because of their previous,clearly known bias on this subject. No Law only a horrible decision by a corrupt bunch of people.

        • Simone September 7, 2015 at 5:01 pm

          You have succeeded in making Jim Jones look like a rational and well adjusted member of society. Good job. 🙂

          • anybody home September 8, 2015 at 1:50 pm

            What flavor is the Kool-aid this time. Always good to ready your comments Simone.

      • 42214 September 7, 2015 at 4:36 pm

        Classic hypocrisy. If the court ruled 5-4 in your favor you would be singing the praises of the 5 wise justices. SCOTUS decisions carry the effect of law. A duly authorized law passed by congress and signed by the President can be struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I hear complaints that 5 unelected lawyers have no right to make law or impose laws on us. NEWS FLASH, yes they do!

        • mesaman September 7, 2015 at 6:27 pm

          In your eyes only. Of course they are closed to anything but PC and the socialist utopia.

        • 42214 September 7, 2015 at 7:23 pm

          C’mon Native Born, aka Woe is me. Let’s hear what you have to say.

          • native born new mexican September 7, 2015 at 11:08 pm

            I knew you would be along to post something nasty 42214 when I first posted. I really do not care what you think or what you say. I said that earlier. Use your imagination. What other things can you think of to call me and Mesaman? You are a bully and I never pay attention to bullies. There are a few of them who have gotten what they deserved from me but that was because they really tried to push me. I won every time.
            I will say what I am allowed to say by St George news (thank you!) and I won’t be bullied. Thought of anything else mean to say yet?

          • mesaman September 7, 2015 at 11:18 pm

            Let him remain where he lies, in a pile of self-inficted dung. He is more comfortable there and no interaction with humans.

          • 42214 September 8, 2015 at 9:20 am

            Native Born, after all your whining you still didn’t answer my question or explain yourself. Is the sheriff OK not to arrest christians? Would you be happy if the court ruled 5-4 in your favor? As for Mesa, I can’t begin to keep up with his venomous hate filled rants. So be a big girl and explain.

          • aviatormh September 8, 2015 at 10:02 am

            I find it funny that you would say that since you have never answered any of my questions you always change the subject

          • 42214 September 8, 2015 at 10:15 am

            Aviator, not true. I remember you saying you would truly like to know what I believed in and I answered with specificity. Ask away again, and I’ll answer again.

          • native born new mexican September 8, 2015 at 10:29 am

            The supreme court is not a law making body no matter if I like their decision or not. There are three branches of government for a very good reason- checks and balances. The judicial and the executive branches are way out of line and have been for many years. I am not a win at any cost type of person. I think using the court to get your way (no matter who does it) is a danger to the very foundation of our constitutional republic. The arrest Christians question is nuts and off the topic.

          • aviatormh September 8, 2015 at 11:51 am

            422 I stand corrected. You did in fact answer that question and thak you it was informative. I guess the question that I have and points out your contradiction is when you and fun bag complained about Utahans not doing anything about the flds, you overlook the fact that your talking about yourself. I asked what you were actively doing about it that excluded you from your comment? If you were doing something, and I mean something that other Utahans were not, what was it? If nothing then why point fingers? If I remember correctly you pointed out my poor spelling. But I didn’t ask for your opinion on that. I’m aware of my shortcomings.

          • 42214 September 8, 2015 at 1:14 pm

            First of all Native Born, SCOTUS does hand down rulings with the effect of law called stare decisis. Always has. Secondly, there are 3,143 counties in the USA and we’re only talking about one zealot clerk. It is not “nuts” to pose a hypothetical of a sheriff not arresting christians because there at 3143 sheriffs so the odds are the same that one sheriff can be a zealot just like Kim Davis. I don’t think I’m off topic as much as you’re legally wrong.

          • 42214 September 8, 2015 at 2:40 pm

            Aviator, it’s not my job to do anything about the FLDS or polygamy. That is the job of the gov’t to enforce laws and not turn a blind eye to it. All I can do is vote against incumbants who do shirk their duty. By the way, it’s been around Utah for well over 120 years so it’s an obvious failure of the state’s gov’t. So to specifically answer your question, I do something about it at the ballor booth. If you have a better idea I’m all ears.

          • aviatormh September 8, 2015 at 5:08 pm

            422 you nailed it. It’s your job at the booth just like you said but you seem to be missing my point. The comments that I was reading were blaming the people, correction, the mormons for not doing anything. I even read how Mormons were turning a blind eye because mormons are the same as the FLDS. It was said, the Mormons in this state didn’t do this and didn’t do that but my halo was just polished this morning so I’m good even though I didn’t do this and that either. Isn’t that the definition of a hypocrite? Denouncing “the Mormons” for thier actions, or in this case, lack of actions yet acting or not acting the same way yourself?

          • 42214 September 8, 2015 at 6:32 pm

            I think the LDS church could have done a lot more than they did. They started this mess with their beliefs and as I said, only denounced it when forced to in 1896 for statehood. After “denouncing” it, church and political leaders continued to practice polygamy for years. Denouncing it in 1896 and doing nothing more since other than lip service is on them. Go back 20, 30, 50 years and tell me the difference between Utah state gov’t and the LDS church. One in the same. That’s where the joke came from, Separation of church and state in Utah is just a few blocks.

          • aviatormh September 8, 2015 at 7:37 pm

            Once again you changed the subject. I thought you said you would answer my question? Doesn’t it make you a hypocrite. The answer to your question is simple. The government is supposed to be, of the people, by the people and for the people. If the majority of voters are LDS and the government reflects that then great it’s working as designed. Soon enough the majority won’t be LDS and if it is still working right you will have what you want. But as long as the majority of VOTERS are LDS do you honestly expect them to vote for someone who doesn’t reflect thier values? If that’s the case then what’s the point of voting in the first place?

          • 42214 September 8, 2015 at 9:58 pm

            According to your logic if the people are racists and want slavery the gov’t should reflect their views. I try to reason with you and discuss things but you are flat nuts. Don’t you understand the concept that the majority can be corrupt and needs to be held in check. You just spew some mindless belief that the majority rules and should be the rule of law. Hypocrite? How about mindless stupid nut case. You, Woe is Me and Mesaman are a lost cause of reason. I hope you do not vote because it is just another exercise in futility. Change the subject? I pointed out that the LDS church made this mess and hasn’t done enough to clean it up. Go outside this state and see what the stereotype image is. It is not positive and it is the fault of the church refusing to proactively address these issues. Why all of a sudden is there transparency? Seer Stones? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You’re not stupid, just naive. If you want, I’ll re-write this and mispell all the words so you can read it easier.

          • aviatormh September 9, 2015 at 10:02 am

            What are you rambling about now? Can’t you focus long enough to answer my question? Fun bag didn’t find it hard to understand my question. Why can’t you? She just said that she didn’t have to answer that question and that was the end of it. Look either just say “You caught me, I’m a hypocrite” or plead the 5th. Either way I suggest that you see someone about you obvious ADHD and I’ll buy a dictionary.

          • 42214 September 9, 2015 at 11:03 pm

            What’s the difference between Mesaman, Woe is Me, and Aviatormh? Answer: nothing

  • MariaLouise September 7, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    Someone (username Kurmudgeon), posted this Barry Goldwater quote on the SLTrib and I wanted to re-post it here:

    “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.

    The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are NOT using their religious clout with WISDOM. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are?… I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”

    – Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.

    • anybody home September 7, 2015 at 3:48 pm

      Wow, this is great. Thanks for posting it.

      • 42214 September 7, 2015 at 4:37 pm

        Au h2o 64, great 1964 bumper sticker

    • laytonian September 8, 2015 at 8:42 am

      Thank you, MariaLouise.

      The “moral majority” (brought in to help elect that paragon of morality Richard M. Nixon) is the creation of money-shilling TV shouters.

      In a county where the average wage is under $14,000 Kim Davis makes over $80,000 a year and refuses to do her job for all citizens. (Of course, she got fooled by the “man” in February and married a transsexual to a woman without checking a birth certification — so she’s going to Hell anyway.)

  • Billy Madison September 7, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    As I gaze longingly at this woman and think that if she would just do something with her hair, put on some makeup, an earing or two, and a faint smile, I still wouldn’t take her out to dinner and a movie.

    • mesaman September 7, 2015 at 11:21 pm

      You are the lowest scum I have ever encountered on this site. May the fleas of your dog and the worms of your decaying mind irritate you for the rest of your miserable life.

    • Dexter September 8, 2015 at 8:19 am

      LOL.! Good one 422

  • Allie September 7, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    Just because other people have civil rights, doesn’t mean your religious rights are being compromised.
    Religious rights mean that you have the right to practice and believe in any religion you choose, but not force those beliefs down everyone else’s throat or take away their civil rights. Here is the first amendment of the Constitution.
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
    She has the right to join any religious organization she chooses. She has the right to believe in any/all of it’s teachings. She has the right to join others of her church in a scheduled religious gathering. She has a right to her opinion, but if that opinion/belief interferes with her job, then she should find another position that does not.
    Employers are required to REASONABLY accommodate employees religious requirements, but not to the extent that it interferes with the civil rights of others.
    There are many people of deep religious faith who work on Sunday, which is considered a day of rest. I am certain there are many Jewish people who work in grocery stores that sell pork. There is a choice to be made a job or religion, and each individual has to decide which will win out. This is the reason we have kept church and state separate
    BIGGUY/GRANDMAB, just a side note, this week a Muslim airline flight attendant refused to serve alcohol. “She approached her supervisor and was told to work out an arrangement for someone to fulfill passenger requests for alcohol.” This worked for a while, but another co-worker complained that she was not upholding her job duties. We’ll see how this plays out.

    • GrandmaB September 8, 2015 at 7:09 am

      Good response. I think the lady Muslim has been let go. The airlines told her that if she didn’t do her job, she should quit. I’m pretty sure I read that somewhere. As they should have. She should find a job that does not violate her sensitive religious conscience. Good for the airlines.

  • AnnieMated September 7, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Kim Davis needs to quit her job or do her job. The U.S Government is, always has been and hopefully always will be a secular institution. Let me say it again; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT A CHURCH! I don’t care what the intentions of the founders were. I don’t care what their religion was. I don’t care what their opinion was. The fact of the matter is that NONE OF THAT was written in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. In fact, THEY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure religion couldn’t interfere when they wrote:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

    The facts are as follows in this case.
    Kim Davis chose to run for Rowan County Clerk, no one forced her to do so.

    Kim Davis isd an employee of the Government (which is a secular institution) not a church.

    Kim Davis took the following oath when she entered the office of Rowan County Clerk:
    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of …. according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God”.

    Kim Davis receives a paycheck from the government for doing her government job.

    Kim Davis has a right to express her her religious views but she DOES NOT have the right, as Rowan County Clerk, to FORCE others to conform to her religious views.

    Kim Davis has the right to find a workable solution or QUIT HER JOB if she is unable to reconcile her religious beliefs with her duties as Rowan County Clerk.

    Here are few of the sources I used for this reply:
    Kentucky Legislative Research Commission
    “Duties of Elected County Officials”

    • mesaman September 7, 2015 at 7:47 pm

      Would you like to know that the judge who ordered her to jail has used his position to further the gay agenda in public schools by denying students first amendment rights, requiring them to undergo re-education training which promoted homosexual lifestyles against their religious objections? Want details, comment.

      • AnnieMated September 7, 2015 at 8:17 pm

        Sure. Lets see what ya have.

        • mesaman September 7, 2015 at 9:32 pm

          Headline; “Judge Who Jailed Kentucky clerk has history of imposing homosexual agenda in public schools” Jerry A Kane, Canada Free Press, 6 September 2015.

          • AnnieMated September 8, 2015 at 11:26 am

            Great comment. However it is wrong to say that “the judge who ordered her to jail has used his position to further the gay agenda in public schools by denying students first amendment rights, requiring them to undergo re-education training which promoted homosexual lifestyles against their religious objections…” because he did not do so.

            “This matter was borne of another lawsuit, Boyd County High School Gay Straight Alliance, et al. v. Board of Education of Boyd County, et al., 03-CI-17-DLB, wherein a group of Boyd County High School students sought to enjoin the defendants from denying their organization, the Boyd County High School Gay Straight Alliance, club status.

            Following the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the parties in that case entered into a Consent Decree which required, among other things, that the school put into effect written anti-harassment policies and conduct mandatory staff and student diversity training, a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.

            Subsequently, the defendant Board of Education of Boyd County, Kentucky (hereinafter “the Board”) incorporated written policies into the Middle School and High School Codes of Conduct, which provide, in relevant part…”

            Here is the original decision

            Judge Bunning, did not “use his position to further the gay agenda” as you allege. He merely upheld the agreement already entered into by the school and the GSA. Was he right? IMO he was not. I can’t go as far to say that he somehow forced his position on the students before the case had even reached his desk.

      • ladybugavenger September 7, 2015 at 8:33 pm

        Is the judge gay?

        • Dexter September 7, 2015 at 9:05 pm

          Oh Nice Shot.! LOL.!

        • mesaman September 7, 2015 at 9:32 pm

          It appears so.

        • GrandmaB September 8, 2015 at 7:13 am

          Maybe he is not gay. Oh, novel idea, he actually believes in civil rights, and is against bullying. WOW, what a corrupt man. Oh, right, he must be gay. Well, good for him if he is. He sounds like a good judge.

      • 42214 September 7, 2015 at 9:50 pm

        Good for him. Looks like Bush made a good choice.

      • GrandmaB September 8, 2015 at 7:12 am

        Good for that judge. If further the “gay agenda” means not allowing hate filled bullying. And if a little education helps those of the mind set that is hate filled and ignorant, then more power to him.

  • ladybugavenger September 7, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    I’m all for standing up for one’s beliefs and integrity. If your job interferes and crosses a line and has you do something that does not line up with your morals, its time to leave that job.

    • laytonian September 8, 2015 at 8:43 am

      Why is Bryan Hyde NOT standing up for the female flight attendant who converted to Islam and found out that she shouldn’t serve alcohol? Or does he just inflict his persecution complex on “christians”?

  • roberttheed September 8, 2015 at 10:54 am

    “For instance, slavery, Jim Crow laws, and even the holocaust were all legal under the governments who enforced them. Individuals and public officials who flouted the Fugitive Slave Act did so out of a sense of moral truth that slavery was wrong.”

    Wait, what? Are you seriously comparing the Holocaust and Jim Crow laws with the 14th Amendment? The Holocaust and Jim Crow laws resulted in millions of deaths, hate, oppression, and the denial of rights to marginalized minorities. The 14th Amendment, and the recent reinterpretation of it by the Supreme Court, expands the rights of individuals. This is the most ass-backwards and completely invalid comparison I have ever seen. SHE is the one doing the discrimination and oppression, not the other way around. Not mention the fact that she is forcing an argument about her religious beliefs into a situation that has nothing to do with it. She doesn’t have to agree with it or condone it nor is doing her job violating her religious beliefs. Her job is to that of a clerk and a records keeper. She is supposed to verify that those applying for a license meet all the legal requirements, which it does according to the Supreme Court, and record it. That’s it. I’m so sick of bigots complaining that they are the ones being oppressed against because they are “denied their right” to deny others of their rights..

    • aviatormh September 8, 2015 at 2:55 pm

      Don’t forget Missouri and executive order 44. That was on the books until 1976. Look it up I’m interested in your opinion.

  • Neil September 8, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    Wow, what a great way to control other people’s behavior; secular servants. We could have Islamic cocktail waitresses that refuse to serve alcohol to cut back on drinking, Amish DMV clerks that refuse to register motor vehicles to cut down on traffic accidents and Christian Science doctors that refuse to perform medical procedures to cut down on health care costs. Why didn’t someone think of this sooner? Oh wait, they did; it was called the dark ages…

    Religious practices are supposed to be a method for self-improvement. If you find yourself trying to alter other people’s behavior instead of just your own you’re doing it wrong.

  • Neil September 8, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    What really amazes me about Bryan Hyde’s views is the fact that he is clearly aware of the dangers of allowing people to be indoctrinated by the collective entity known as government, yet he fully embraces the same practices by the collective entity known as organized religion, that uses the same methods with the same intent; power and control.

  • 42214 September 8, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    News Flash, Kim Davis released from jail to compete as Miss Kentucky in Miss America pageant. Miss Utah now has a chance.

  • anybody home September 8, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    Well, Kim’s out of jail and marriage licenses are being given out, so what’s the next topic of – uhm – “debate” here?

  • Dexter September 8, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    She is where she belongs.. In jail I don’t care what her religious point of view is. City Hall is not a church

  • ladybugavenger September 8, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    I think it’s only fair that we have a straight pride parade!!!

    • sagemoon September 9, 2015 at 11:43 am

      I agree. No group should be excluded from being able to celebrate their values.

  • sagemoon September 9, 2015 at 11:41 am

    Gosh, Bryan, I’ve got to strongly disagree with your opinion this week. I look forward to seeing what you write next week.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.