Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Posts for September, 2015

Mike Huckabee on Kim Davis

Timothy Kincaid

September 2nd, 2015

GOP Presidential pretender and Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee has called Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to offer her prayers and support. He’s also opined on the legality of the situation.

“Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples,” Mr. Huckabee said.

As they say on So You Think You Can Dance, sorry Mike but your lack of technical training is showing.

Why Kim Davis won’t resign

Timothy Kincaid

September 1st, 2015

Rowan County has about 24,000 residents in about 8,300 households. The median income per household (a blend of single-earner and double-earner) is $35,000. The median income for female workers is around $20,000. The average price of houses sold recently in Rowan County is $95,000.

Kim Davis makes almost $80,000.

Davis issues a statement

Timothy Kincaid

September 1st, 2015

Here is Kim Davis’ explanation as to why she is entitled to thwart the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Kentucky.

I have worked in the Rowan County Clerk’s office for 27 years as a Deputy Clerk and was honored to be elected as the Clerk in November 2014, and took office in January 2015. I love my job and the people of Rowan County. I have never lived any place other than Rowan County. Some people have said I should resign, but I have done my job well. This year we are on track to generate a surplus for the county of 1.5 million dollars.

In addition to my desire to serve the people of Rowan County, I owe my life to Jesus Christ who loves me and gave His life for me. Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish. There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God.

I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people’s religious freedom and conscience. I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned – that conscience and religious freedom would be protected. That is all I am asking. I never sought to be in this position, and I would much rather not have been placed in this position. I have received death threats from people who do not know me. I harbor nothing against them. I was elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience.

You see, she has the religious liberty to cause the County to deny civil rights to gay couples. That’s all she’s asking. Why are you so unaccomodating?

After all, our Founders intended that civil servants use their own religion to deny services to those of other beliefs. That’s what the Second Amendment is all about: Congress cannot establish religion; that’s the role of County Clerks.

Kim Davis defies rule of law

Timothy Kincaid

September 1st, 2015

Kim DavisIt appears that at some point over the night, the Creator of the Universe took a few minutes for a very special meeting with Kim Davis, the Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. And at that meeting God deputized Davis as Deputy Deity and gave her special duties and powers, among which is the right to determine whose marriage is recognized by the state of Kentucky.

Or so Davis seems to believe. Because this morning when two same-sex couples turned up to get their marriage licenses, they were again turned away. (WaPo)

When Davis emerged, she declared that she was not issuing any licenses.

“Under whose authority?” she was asked.

“Under God’s authority,” she said.

Now, I tend to question the faith of those who jump to claim the authority of God. Surely if you believe that an omnipotent deity sees all you do, you’d hesitate a bit before stepping into His shoes and using His authority to push your will on His other children. The consequences of being wrong are so great.

So too are the consequences of defying a federal judge. (NBC)

Couples who have sued the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, quickly asked a federal judge to hold her in contempt. They sought a fine but not jail time.

The contempt request was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky on behalf of couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, who sued Davis.

“Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform,” lawyers wrote, “plaintiffs urge the Court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis’ immediate compliance without further delay.”

A hearing on the contempt case is set for Thursday. I think that Davis will discover there that “My God trumps your legal authority” is a position that judges view askance.

And I think that the request for fines and not jail is a smart one. The imagery of Davis being dragged to jail would feed her martyrdom narrative while levying her salary may serve to incentivize her just as well.

Decision point for Kim Davis

Timothy Kincaid

August 31st, 2015

Kim DavisRowan County Clerk Kim Davis is now out of stalling tactics.

Today the US Supreme Court denied Davis’ request for a stay on Judge Bunning’s ruling. Also today, the most liberal interpretation of Bunning’s stay runs out. Tomorrow Davis will have to decide whether to comply with the orders of the Federal judge or whether she will choose to be in contempt of court. (

Mat Staver, a lawyer representing Davis, told the Associated Press “she’s going to have to think and pray about her decision overnight.”

Davis’ decision is complicated by a growing pressure on her from several sides. A couple who were denied a licence have requested Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins to prosecute Davis for official misconduct. Watkins referred the issue to Attorney General Jack Conway. (

The Kentucky attorney general is mulling whether to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether she violated the state official misconduct statute when her office refused to issue a license to a Rowan County gay couple.

Official misconduct is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 365 days in jail.

A public servant is guilty of it when, “with intent to deprive another person of a benefit,” he or she refrains “from performing a duty imposed upon by law or clearly inherent in the nature” of his office or “violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation” relating to it.

The couple has also filed a lawsuit against Davis. And it does not appear that she has the support of the Rowan County Government.

Amidst all of this, Davis continues to misstate her intent. She claims that she does not wish to be forced to issue marriage licenses that contravene her religious beliefs.

That is inaccurate. The task is one easily passed to an assistant.

In truth, Davis wishes to prohibit same-sex couples from receiving marriage licenses in Rowan County Kentucky, in effect forcing the citizens of the county to live how she deems appropriate. She is a petty bureaucrat heady on her own limited authority and determined to use her dollop of power to the greatest extent.

No, no, the rentboy raid didn’t target any specific population

Timothy Kincaid

August 27th, 2015

You will no doubt be delighted to learn that when the Federal Department of Homeland Security raided and shut down it had nothing to do with it being a gay site. No, sirree. (NYTimes)

Khaalid Walls, a spokesman for the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which participated in the investigation, said in an email that “any insinuation that a specific population was targeted is categorically false.”

Yes, it may be true that the last time anyone went after a straight escort site included charges of money laundering and child pornography, neither of which is cited in the Rentboy case. Merest coincidence.

And it may also be true that the complaint filed by special agent Susan Ruiz includes the following language:

A profile for “Brandon,” advertising services in Brooklyn, New York stated that he is “hairy handsome versatile & uninhibited.” The profile noted that he was willing to have Brooklyn incalls and had a “sling and rim chair.” Based on my investigation, I have learned that a sling, also known as a “sex sling,” is a device that allows two people to have sex while one is suspended and a rimchair is a seat resembling a raised toilet seat designed so that that anus is accessible while someone is sitting on the seat. I have also learned that “rimming” refers to the touching of the tongue to the anus.

But that isn’t included for any sort of titillating or shocking factor. And definitely not to suggest that Homosexual Acts Are Icky Icky Icky. Nope. That was necessary valuable information.

And in case all of this reminds you a bit of bar raids and police stings on gay people, please be assured that your government would never do that. No. Such an idea is categorically false.

Kentucky county clerk toys with contempt

Timothy Kincaid

August 27th, 2015

Kim DavisKim Davis should not be forced to give out marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Davis has a right to her beliefs, religious or otherwise, and a constitutionally protected freedom to live by the dictates of her conscience.

However, governmental entities do not have the right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that to do so is a violation of constitutional protections of equality.

And Kim Davis is the County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky. Which might seem to set up a conundrum. Davis cannot be forced to violate her conscience, and yet the County cannot deny equality. Quite the paradox.

But not really. Because Kim Davis does not issue marriage licenses; the Rowan County Clerk issues marriage licenses. The marriage certificates bear the Seal of the State of Kentucky, not the Seal of Kim Davis.

Davis merely performs tasks as the physical representative of the county. Her official actions do not originate in Davis’ will nor are they performed for Davis’ benefit. What Davis believes is irrelevant and when she speaks on behalf of the county, “the relevant speaker is the government entity, not the individual”.

So said the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday when denying stay to Davis in her legal challenge to her obligation to perform the duties of the county.

Two weeks ago Federal Judge David Bunning ordered Davis, in her official capacity, to issue a marriage licenses, including to same-sex couples. He had stayed his ruling so that Davis could appeal to the Sixth Circuit. But the Court’s response leaves no ambiguity.

In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court. There is thus little or no likelihood that the Clerk in her official capacity will prevail on appeal.

Which means that Davis and other employees of Rowan County cannot thwart the County in performing its duties to its residents. The County Clerk must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples who request them without discrimination.

Yet the Clerk’s Office continues to refuse to do so. (

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis continued to withhold marriage licenses from local residents Thursday, a day after a federal appeals court upheld an order telling her to end her protest.

James Yates and William Smith Jr. were turned away by a deputy clerk in Davis’ office Thursday morning when they asked for a marriage license. The deputy told the men Davis thinks she can legally withhold marriage licenses until Monday, Aug. 31, under an order issued earlier this month by U.S. District Judge David Bunning.

August 31st is the deadline Judge Bunning gave for Davis to appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Obviously the temporary stay given by Bunning expired upon the Sixth Circuit response and this is all but a game. Kim Davis is opening herself up to charges of contempt (though I doubt that happen).

Nevertheless, in a few days time there may be a showdown. Davis will need to decide whether the County Clerk’s Office will fulfill its duties, whether she will defy the orders of the court, or whether she will resign.

I suspect that Davis will continue to obstruct the operations of the county. Davis and her attorney, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, are using this situation as a form of public activism against same-sex marriage. Their desire is twofold: to carve away at the rights of gay citizens and to rally public support for their ‘religious freedom’ political endeavors.

But, as is so often true, Liberty Counsel and other anti-gay activists appear to have selected the wrong case to rally around.

Kim Davis is a particularly unsympathetic “victim”, one with whom it is difficult to empathize. She lacks a groomed appearance and her manner appears abrupt and harsh.

But, more importantly, her cause is not one that appeals to anyone other than those who are fiercely opposed to equality for gay people. The great middle population, that to which a thoughtful appeal for religious liberty could be effective, will likely not find “I want to block the county business because of my personal beliefs” to be compelling.

This just sounds to many people like another self-important bureaucrat seeking to interfere in others’ lives. Most people find dealing with governmental entities to be annoying enough without having to worry whether the person responsible for issuing fishing licenses is a vegan or if the county planner is an old hippy that favors quonset huts or if the person issuing business licenses is a teetotaler. Davis’ religious quest to obstruct marriages because of her religion feels like more of the same sort of nonsense.

Personally (though I know many here disagree) I think that there is a valid argument to be made for the religious liberty of individuals to operate their personal business according the their conscience. And that is an argument that can appeal to a broad spectrum, left or right, gay or straight.

But Staver and crew may turn off the public with their defense of the indefensible that they poison the well for any other more legitimate claims.


Staver says that he is going to appeal to the Supreme Court tomorrow for a stay until the case can reach them. I am not anticipating that said stay will be issued.

Get your all new, even sleazier, Josh Duggar (with extra ick factor)

Timothy Kincaid

August 26th, 2015

danica dillonSo we know Josh Duggar (of 19 Kids and Counting fame), was recently discovered to have molested his sisters and their babysitter while in his teens. We also know that Duggar was executive director of FRC Action (a project of Family Research Council) where he railed against the imagined sexual immorality and threat to children that gay people pose, all while maintaining accounts on hook-up site OKCupid and cheating-spouse site Ashley Madison.

We now have our first accusation of actual infidelity. And it’s even sleazier than I expected.

It seems Duggar trolled strip-clubs and hired porn stars for rough sex. In Touch Magazine

After watching her show and “eyeballing me,” Danica says he bought $600 in private dances and then “asked me how would he be able to spend the evening with me.” She reveals to In Touch that Josh was violent with her when they had sex, he did not use protection and gave her thousands of dollars after their encounters.

Danica admits she “took the opportunity because Josh offered to gift [her] $1,500.” But soon after Josh arrived at her hotel room, things got rough.

“He was manhandling me, basically tossing me around like I was a rag doll,” Danica, whose real name is Ashley Lewis, and although the sex was consensual, “It was very traumatic. I’ve had rough sex before, but this was terrifying.”

In response, Duggar has checked himself into a faith-based recovery center for his sex addiction. Ya know, kinda like Lindsay Lohan did to recover from bad publicity her drug addiction.

Let’s hope, for the sake of his wife and kids, that he’s more sincere and successful than Lohan. But I wouldn’t bet a nickel on it.

Feds shut down

Timothy Kincaid

August 25th, 2015

RentboyWhat a glorious day! The Federal Government has solved all major issues before it.

The kinks in the medical care delivery system are smoothed out. Funding has been found to provide social security to future generations. Environmental policy is now such that we can leave in a cleaner world and also compete economically. ISIS has disbanded, Iran has disclosed and dismantled its nuclear programs, and Israel and her neighbors have made peace. And a sustainable energy source has been discovered that neither places reliance on foreign nations nor mildly annoys the spotted titmouse.

Yes it’s a glorious day.

And how do I know that all these achievements have been accomplished? Because the US Federal Government expended time and effort into shutting down, a website that allows escorts and their potential customers to meet each other, and arresting its employees.

And surely that has to be about the lowest possible priority that Homeland Security, or any governmental unit, could have.

Now I’m not going to pretend that Rentboy is anything other than what it is: a vehicle for prostitution. Although selling sex is forbidden by the site (in a wink and nod at legality) few participants on the site expect that their clients want them to accompany them to the opera (though some may want you to help them lift luggage in Europe).

No, it’s a hustler site. Which is fine with me.

My view of prostitution – or, at least, male prostitution – is based in pragmatism.

My life has shown me that there are those who have been given a great mind and an ability to succeed financially, but a who are unlikely to ever saunter down the street to the admiring gaze of all. And I have also met those who dazzle the eye with their natural beauty but find it beyond their abilities to make change or write a coherent sentence.

I suppose those who fall in neither camp could insist that the physically less fortunate should just drastically reduce his expectations. Surely he can find someone on his own level. But, sadly, even the ugly often don’t want to date the ugly. So for many of these men, the options can end up being hiring a prostitute or having no sex at all.

And I really can’t think of any option for the beautifully stupid other than to hope that someone with economic potential falls for them and is willing to pay their bills and put up with less than stellar conversation. It happens.

Of course not all johns are unappealing nor are all hustlers dumb. The reasons to exchange money for sex are multitudinous. Time constraints may hinder the building of relationships, small town attitudes may have social costs, emotional tendencies may cause one to not date well, loss of a partner might cause one not to want to seek a mate but still fulfill sexual needs. And these all seem valid reasons to me.

But, perhaps you disagree. Maybe you believe that prostitution is demeaning and abusive and lends itself to sex trafficking and sexual slavery. And in some cases it may.

And I grant you that it’s not a good long-term plan, especially for an aging call boy.

But even if you oppose prostitution in general, let’s be honest.

Prostitution is not going to stop by shutting down Rentboy. Lonely men who have no luck in bars or on hook-up sites are still going to hunt out desireable men to pay for sex. And men who need funds are still going to be willing to offer their body for cash. That isn’t going to stop, or even likely diminish.

However, now they will do so without the protection of a site that allows for feedback and has at least some knowledge of the identity of both the escort and the john.

Now that Rentboy is gone, we can expect to see an increase in extortion, faceless crime, and physical violence. It is no coincidence that they Craigslist murders were not Rentboy murders. And we will likely also find that those who once had some measure of control over their situation will now be under the control of pimps and abusers. This decision by Homeland Security has helped no one and likely endangered many.

Ah, but the Feds have shut down the homosexual prostitutes. And I’m sure they are giving themselves a pat on the back.

Josh Duggar’s statement

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2015


In response to revelations that he had accounts with affair hook-up site Ashley Madison and dating site OKCupid while working for Family Research Council, Josh Duggar (of the 19 Kids and Counting reality show) released the following statement:

Statement from Josh Duggar:

I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have been unfaithful to my wife.

I am so ashamed of the double life that I have been living and am grieved for the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused my wife and family, and most of all Jesus and all those who profess faith in Him.

I have brought hurt and a reproach to my family, close friends and the fans of our show with my actions.

The last few years, while publicly stating I was fighting against immorality in our country I was hiding my own personal failures.

As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences. I deeply regret all the hurt I have caused so many by being such a bad example.

I humbly ask for your forgiveness. Please pray for my precious wife Anna and our family during this time.

Josh Duggar

I expect that the next thing we will hear from the Duggars is a new TLC reality series about how to keep your marriage strong after one party strays. These people have no moral center. At all.

Why not add Gypsies to the Pride Parade?

Timothy Kincaid

July 23rd, 2015

Suppose that the Roma community (better known as “Gypsies”*) approached the organizers of Gay Pride parades and proposed that the events be changed to the Gay and Gypsies Pride events. Like the gay community, they explain, Gypsies have been excluded and discriminated against and treated with contempt. Even the name “Gypsy” has become a pejorative term thrown around at people who are not Romani so as to insult them.

After all, it’s not like gays still need to fight for marriage or military or family rights. And there are so many commonalities between the two communities that it just makes sense that the parades, demonstrations, and festivals advocating for gay inclusion should now focus on Gypsy inclusion. And since we’ve accomplished so much, it’s the Gypsies’ time.

Now many of us can empathize with the plight of the Roma people. Theirs has been a long tough row to hoe. But as for changing Gay Pride to be Gay and Gypsy Pride? I’m sure the answer would be a unanimous No. We have a sense of ownership and history and shared experiences and our remembrance of the Stonewall uprising has special meaning to us.

Nevertheless, many Roma people may feel that they are being rejected and disrespected and treated with contempt. Yet again, ugly anti-Gypsy animus has raised its head.

Now this is a very far-fetched scenario. The Roma are extremely unlikely to want to join up with the LGBT community and be equal partners at our festivals and parades.

But I propose this thought-exercise for a reason.

Currently before Congress is the Equality Act, which is designed to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.” Specifically, it seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 thusly:

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin.


SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

The bill goes on to similarly revise Sections 301, 401, 410, 601, 701, 703, 704, 706, 717, and so on.

It would also add to the list of service providers prohibited from such discrimination:

(4) any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services;
(5) any train service, bus service, car service, taxi service, airline service, station, depot, or other place of or establishment that provides transportation service;

And clarifies that

A reference in this title to an establishment—
(1) shall be construed to include an individual whose operations affect commerce and who is a provider of a good, service, or program; and
(2) shall not be construed to be limited to a physical facility or place.

(In other words, this bill will specifically include unincorporated individuals who bake wedding cakes or arrange flowers from their home on a part-time basis.)

In addition to the above, the bill changes law relating to credit application and jury selection. But the primary provisions are the revision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This bill will be opposed. Under Congress’ current configuration, it has very little chance of passing.

Some will oppose the bill because they believe that homosexuality is a trait that should be discouraged and that anti-gay discrimination is advantageous to society. Some may oppose the bill out of unexamined discomfort, animus, bigotry, or prejudice. Some libertarian minded people may see this bill as a step too far, one which disregards the rights of the individual to autonomy and self-determination.

But I believe that there will be an opposition to this bill which will be – at least initially – misunderstood. I believe that a sizable portion of the African-American community will oppose this bill for reasons that may be mistaken as animus but which hold a different basis altogether.

For Black Americans, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a near-sacred document. It has context and history and is closely tied in the minds of African Americans to slavery, Jim Crow laws, oppression, and anti-Black bigotry. The African American community has an emotional ownership in this piece of legislation.

And it may feel as though something is being taken from them, lack of respect is being shown for their history, and that gays are ‘latching-on’ to the Black Civil Rights Movement. A group that has not shared their history and which does not experience their lives is now saying “us, too”.

This is going to sit poorly with some African American leaders. Perhaps many of them. I think it even possible (though unlikely) that the Congressional Black Caucus may oppose this proposed revision to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And some in our community will be offended. They may be tempted to see it as yet another evidence of animus and anti-gay bigotry. Another “now that they got theirs” situation.

We should resist that temptation.

We should instead be respectful of the emotional ownership with which Black Americans hold this Act and the reasons behind it. Whether or not revision to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may be the best method through which to deal with anti-gay discrimination, let’s be careful to approach this bill with a recognition of the feelings and history of others.

After all, opposition to this bill by black leaders may be similar, in many ways, to how opposition would be within our community to revising Gay Pride to be Gay and Gypsy Pride. Less animus than a sense of personal ownership.

(* use of the term Gypsy is not meant be offensive. Although some consider Gypsy to be a pejorative term, that is a term many Romi use for themselves and is used in law. In some ways it mirrors the word Gay and how it is used by society)

Last day for silly grandstanding on Obergefell

Timothy Kincaid

July 21st, 2015

Those organizations that are funded primarily due to their rantings about a homosexual agenda and how God is going to rain fire and brimstone down on America have been pushing a notion that is either baldly cynical or astonishingly naive. They have been trying to rally their listeners to call Mike DeWine, the Ohio Attorney General, and demand that he ask the Supreme Court to rehear Obergefell.

Their script goes something like this: DeWine requests a rehearing (which must be requested by today); Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves (cuz they HAVE to, you know); SCOTUS votes without the Kagan and Ginsburg; and we win, we win, we win!!!

There are a few problems with that scenario, of course. The court isn’t going to rehear Obergefell, Kagan and Ginsburg aren’t going to recuse themselves, and the anti-gays aren’t going to win, to win, to win!!! But, even more simply, DeWine isn’t going to request a rehearing.

Because he doesn’t want one.

On the day that SCOTUS handed down Obergefell, gays and lesbians were the happiest people in the nation. The second happiest were Republican politicians.

Because while there are candidates for office that will continue to scream about gay marriage so as to raise their profile among church goers and Fox watchers, saner GOP leaders can read polls. So they know well that this is an issue that is only going to hurt the identity of the party going forward. They are delighted that it is behind them.

Texas Judge issues form designed to insult gay citizens

Timothy Kincaid

July 13th, 2015

depiazzaJudge James R. DePiazza of Denton County, Texas, isn’t so fond of the gay. And he’s quite happy to let the world know his view.

But Judge DePiazza also wants to continue conducting civil marriage ceremonies and knows that if he conducts opposite-sex marriages that he also must allow same-sex couples the same rights.

So he’s come up with a solution. He’ll offer marriages to same-sex couples, but they have to sign a form that they understand that he is contemptuous towards them and they damn well better not talk to him about it or take any pictures with him in it.

The Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling on June 26, 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges has legalized marriage in all 50 States regardless of gender. The result of this ruling has not changed Judge DePiazza’s personal convictions on marriage, but has changed the way he is now conducting ceremonies. Judge DePiazza will conduct a brief formal declaration of civil marriage ceremony. The ceremony will strictly be a witnessing to the individuals acknowledgement that they want to be married under the laws of this State and be bound to the marriage laws in the State of Texas. A declaration will be read by Judge DePiazza that both parties respond with affirmation.

Judge DePiazza prefers to NOT conduct same-sex ceremonies, but will not decline anyone who chooses to schedule with him.

Obviously this isn’t legal. And surely this judge knows that he’s asking for a lawsuit in federal court, where his chances are zero. Even in Texas.

So I think it’s really just Judge James R. DePiazza being an asshole.

Abetting kidnapping isn’t covered by Liberty University’s insurance policy

Timothy Kincaid

July 13th, 2015

Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University added a law department in 2004 under the guidance of Mat Staver.

And it was while Staver was the Dean of the School of Law that he and fellow professor Rena Lindevaldsen orchestrated a plan by which Lisa Miller could kidnap Isabella Miller-Jenkins and flee to Nicaragua so as to thwart the legal rights of Miller’s former partner Janet Jenkins. Portions of the kidnapping was facilitated by a Liberty employee, and documents reveal that other staff members were aware of the plan.

So Janet Jenkins has sued the various schemers under RICO law, including Liberty University.

Liberty thought, oh that’s what insurance is for. But their provider saw things differently and refused to pay for their legal defense. So Liberty sued their insurance provider insisting that they cover the cost of the RICO defense.

A federal court found summary judgement for Liberty, ruling that the insurance must pay for the school’s defense. However, the insurer appealed and a three judge panel of the Fourth Circuit overruled the lower court decision and now Liberty’s defense will be on their own dime.

the Intentional and Criminal Acts Exclusion embraces claims “arising out of any intentional, dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or malicious act or omission or any willful violation of law by the insured” and “precludes coverage for all insured persons under the policy regardless whether the person seeking coverage participated in any way in the intentional or criminal acts or omissions.” As we have emphasized, the Jenkins Complaint alleges Appellee’s liability for injuries arising from its direct involvement in conspiracies to commit kidnapping and racketeering, which carry criminal penalties. We conclude these claims clearly and unambiguously trigger the Intentional and Criminal Acts Exclusion.

I guess that the Law School didn’t read the fine print before it set about to conduct a kidnapping.

Make me a martyr, please

Timothy Kincaid

July 9th, 2015

toby willToby Will wasn’t happy with the Obergefell ruling and wrote a letter to the Stockton Record to say so.

The Word of God is going forth with striking clarity and Divine accuracy. Man’s rebellion, ungodliness, and unrighteousness in rejecting the truth in order that he may live according to the vile and sinful passions of his corrupt heart is going to be met with the wrath of God.

And in the letter he whined about how persecuted he will be for writing the letter and how much God loves him for it.

Whoever speaks out against this blatant debauchery and dares to take a stand for the truth, will find themselves standing alone. But those who are willing to stand alone for the truth will find that God stands with them.

That’s a pretty mean spirited and self congratulatory letter, but nothing really out of the ordinary. Such rants are expected after controversial decisions.

But what wasn’t ordinary was the signature:

Toby Will
Lieutenant, Stockton Police Dept.

Normally the Record would not include a place of employment or title, but Will insisted. (News10)

Stockton Record editor Mike Klocke said the newspaper generally prints only a letter writer’s name and city of residence, but that Will was insistent that his Stockton police affiliation and title be included.

Klocke said the letter from Will was accompanied by a personal note suggesting he knew the letter would generate controversy and perhaps even threaten his job.

“As a lieutenant in a moderate-sized police agency, I would like to be one voice that makes it very clear I operate from a biblical world view, not a pop cultural one,” Klocke quoted from the note included with Will’s letter. The note continued, “Though this may have a negative impact on an otherwise impeccable police career, I earnestly request that you print what I write.”

And it may well have a negative impact.

Will’s insistence that as a lieutenant in Stockton’s police department he operates with a view that gay people are vile and debauched sends a fairly clear message that he cannot interact with the public with professionalism and fairness. And that rightly concerns his employer.

“He does not speak for the Police Department, and regarding his use of his police position, it is under administrative review,” department spokesman Officer Joe Silva said Wednesday. Silva could not discuss what that administrative review might lead to.

After reading the letter, Police Chief Eric Jones made a call to the San Joaquin Pride Center “to reassure them that Will does not speak for the Police Department,” Silva said.

Jones and his department have invested time and energy in building a good relationship with the LGBT community. His officers receive sensitivity training and the police force is responsive to the community’s concerns.

Will obviously knows this. And he obviously knows that he was not authorized to use his title or position at in the police department to write letters that members of the public will find insulting and threatening.

My only conclusion is that Toby Will is tired of his job and wants to go on the martyr circuit instead.

But so far, the community isn’t calling for his firing. And I hope that they don’t.

The best way to treat self-righteous would-be martyrs is not to fire them but to find them a job that best suits their temperament. And if it turns out that Will violated department policy by attaching his name to his hateful screed, I’m thinking a demotion and a desk in a corner, away from the public, filling out paperwork is appropriate. In triplicate. With a number 2 pencil. In fluorescent lighting.

Newer Posts | Older Posts