As reporters tried to figure out what was next for Davis — would she really allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples to be distributed once she returned to work? — “Eye of the Tiger’s” co-author was thinking about something else. Davis and/or her entourage hadn’t just co-opted his song for a cause he didn’t believe in. She had done it without his permission.

“I have not authorized the use of Eye of the Tiger for use by Kim Davis and my publisher will issue a [cease and desist],” Peterik tweeted. “This does not reflect my views.”

Peterik further explained his displeasure in a statement to Billboard magazine.

“I was very surprised and dismayed at the misuse of the song I co-wrote with Frankie Sullivan for Rocky lll,” he said. “The song has motivated thousands through the years to reach beyond their limits. Its use for the release of Kim Davis does not support my views or my politics. I have contacted my publishers to make sure this usage is stopped immediately.”

Sullivan chimed in as well.

“NO!” he wrote on Facebook. “We did not grant Kim Davis any rights … I would not grant her the rights to use Charmin!” Sullivan added a personal message for Huckabee: “C’mon Mike, you are not The Donald but you can do better than that.”

If you are going to co-opt a song for a national media event over a controversial issue, it really shouldn’t be the group’s signature song.  “Eye of the Tiger” is the song that turned Survivor into the band that Baby Boomers and their children still thing of today.  It crosses many generations.  Kim Davis can’t drape herself and her misguided cause in that song.


Watching the video of presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee’s  attempt to seize the day and a self-made glory-hog feigning religious objection  might have been a feel good moment for a small number of Americans.   However,  most of us saw the manipulation that has spurred Davis into making her fool-hearted attempt to defy the Supreme Court ruling.   Davis did not win and she will not win.   She was used.

What jumped out at me was really her insincerity.  A sincere person would have simply resigned.  Her religious rights have not been compromised in the least.  All she had to do is step down.  No harm done.  Her entire mood reflected “movement” and “cause” rather than the austere nature that comes from people whose actions stems from principle and divine inspiration.

I expect both Peterick and Sullivan will sue  over the use of their song to defend an idea that they both find repugnant.    I hope they win.  “Eye of the Tiger” is about personal triumph against all odds.  This moment yesterday might have been a personal triumph for Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee but it really appeared to have little do with God and more about self-aggrandizement.  For Huckabee, the rally seemed to be exactly that–a political rally.

36 Thoughts to “Kim Davis: Might have hold of the wrong end of the tiger”

  1. BSinA

    Her song should be “I’m a little crack pot, short and stout”.

  2. Jackson Bills

    Well…. she is a life long Democrat, what do you expect?

  3. Jackson Bills

    BSinA :
    Her song should be “I’m a little crack pot, short and stout”.

    Ah yes… body shaming a woman, nice.

  4. BSinA

    You are right, Jackson. I didn’t add to the discourse. I apologize.

  5. blue

    From Red Rock Tribune:

    In the wake of all the cases involving same-sex couples being turned down by county clerks, it would seem the tables have been turned. This time it’s a gay judge refusing to perform straight weddings.

    The Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker explained her decision at a monthly meeting for the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas.

    “I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage equality in the state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” she said.

    So why is this being tolerated? Where is the judicial oversight on this in Texas? Where is the Bar Association? Can we at least agree that this judge should be given the same options that were given to Kim Davis, also a democrat.

    1. As long as someone is there performing straight weddings, it seems to me that a point is being made. The problem would be if that woman were the only judge available and no straight people could marry. Then there would be a problem. I hope that the judge is only withholding her services temporarily, to make a point. Otherwise, she needs to step down also.

      Actually our clerk of the court needs to step down. She is performing no marriages. In addition, there are only 11 people on the celebrant list to perform civil ceremonies. I wonder if any of those people refuse to perform same sex marriage?

      I don’t really care what people believe. I do care if they have a job to do, that they don’t do it. Not sure our clerk of the court is even being challenged. If left up to the local democrats, probably not. She was challenged by a local Republican but he lost. Good for him.

  6. Scout

    Blue’s comment shows how corrosive this idea of self-exempting from the law can become, particularly in a democracy that depends on Rule of Law to ensure that we all have some degree of confidence that the law treats us equally. There’s no limiting principle on what the Kentucky clerk is trying to get away with. If she can refuse to dispense government services because she has some idea in her head that it interferes with her views, then the judge in Houston can do the same thing, on and on, ad infinitum. The only stopping point is total collapse of society.

  7. blue


    You do understand how how hypocritical that sounds. Its ok to disobey the law if it supports your position, but not when it doesn’t.

    1. Read closely. Additionally, I did put a couple of caveats in there, including removal from office if it was for anything other to make a point.

      I believe I also said there had to be someone else to perform the marriage. Big difference in the two situations.

      Actually, I wouldn’t mind at all if Kim Davis didn’t sign off on same sex marriage as long as there was someone else in her office to do it. The problem was, she didn’t allow anyone else to do it either.

      Stop being so freaking binary.

  8. blue


    Surely, a judge cannot waive the law – any law – to make a political point any more than a clerk can. IMHO its worse even more inappropriate and hypocritical when a judge does it. That judge should be removed from office immediatley.

    1. I supposed it depends on the laws of the state. I am just going by your rendition.

      Let’s put it this way, it isn’t the sword I would choose to fall on.

  9. blue

    Thank you BS. I thought it was a very cogent, well-developed presentation. Thank you, sir, as I am sure I will sleep better tonight knowing that your brain–as well as the brains of all of my loved democrats are protected from psychotronic radiation, microwave attack, and zombie cuisine. They, like all democratic supporters need protection, special treatment under the law, a range of unearned entitlements and, most importantly, serious pyscological treatment for aggrevated ego and self agrandizement.

    1. Are you really driven that much by party, Blue?

      Do you ever disagree with your republican heroes?

  10. BSinA

    Actually, Blue, I thought the video would help explain you !

  11. blue

    Well thanks BS. Other than the tin foil, which I will leave to you to explain, I guess you know that a survivalist is only crazy until the sh*t hits the fan. But lets be clear,Today we have media stories about the grandfather who shot three thugs who ordered him to open his safe which, of course, had a loaded pistol in it. Got all three of them. Then there was the story today that NASA is trying to explain why there are live protozo living on the outside of the space station and the segment on the Today Show today about the new 90 minutes in heaven movie. I sure would not want to be serving the lier’s agenda given the congressional testimony today that Planned Paranthood aborts 80 babies per day in addtion to the baby parts controversey. Add to that the abandonment of Isreal – given the 25 year threat from Iran’s Supreme leader and I think Kim Davis is pretty small potatos.

  12. BSinA

    Blue… please review the video I recommended before.

  13. Kelly_3406


    What is the legal basis for 9 justices on the Supreme Court to have the final word on the constitutionality of a particular law? As we all know, it is based on nothing more than precedent. The Supreme Court seized this power with Marbury vs Madison and has grown steadily more powerful ever since. Essentially the Court makes law that can never be overturned except by a future Court or by ratification of a constitutional amendment. It seems to me that 9 people should not have this much power in a republic, particularly since there is no meaningful check or balance on its power.

    When the Court takes sides in cultural battles (i.e. gay marriage), it may be time to consider reform.

    1. I have thought that many times, Kelly. On the other hand, what were they thinking with Citizens United??

  14. Scout

    If the Court rules in a way that collides with the will of the People, Kelly, they People can legislate, or, in the case of a constitutional issue, amend the Constitution, to express their will. Marbury v. Madison certainly has withstood the test of time – it usually only comes up from people who are unhappy with this or that ruling. However, if it is not our will that there be some entity to call balls and strikes against the other two branches, they can be trimmed back through the amendment process. We’ve have a couple of centuries to do that and we haven’t. If we did knock out that function, how then would we constrain unlawful or anti-constitutional actions by the other branches? Would you be comfortable living in a Republic without that constraint?

    If so, have at it. The mechanisms are clear.

  15. Emma

    Interesting commentary from folks who were abuzz over the Supremes handing an election to GWB.

    1. Not sure you know how any of us feel about George Bush and the Supremes. The blog wasn’t here then. Totally different situation. Once it was done, it was done. That was a very unique situation. The decision on same sex marriage, not so much.

  16. Kelly_3406

    Scout :
    If we did knock out that function, how then would we constrain unlawful or anti-constitutional actions by the other branches? Would you be comfortable living in a Republic without that constraint?

    I would not be comfortable without that constraint. But I am also not comfortable without there bring a more practical constraint on the Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment is so difficult to ratify (as it should be) that there is no practical way to balance the power of the Court. There needs to be a method to override a Supreme Court decision short of a constitutional amendment.

    We know the Court has made some dreadful decisions. It took a Civil War and 600,000 lives to rectify the Dred Scott decision. There should be some method short of War to check its power.

    1. There are many Supreme Court decisions that have been terrible. There have been even more Congressional bills that have been terrible. Then how about those presidential decisions and executive orders? Its always going to be push me/pull me. I guess that’s why its called BALANCE of powers.

  17. Ed Myers

    @blue, are you referring to the grandfather that shot his grandaughter while hunting cats? Or the one who shot his grandson while target practicing?
    Google “grandfather shoots” and none of the stories on the first page are the kind you’d here about from gun ownership promoters.

  18. Watching

    @Blue One “nice” anecdotal story does not excuse the massive number of other senseless gun deaths that occur in this country every day. Look at the statistics. The detrimental effects that guns have on our society far outweigh the benefits in this situation. Period.

  19. Citizen of Rowan Co.

    send her a bill, she’s still getting paid !

    1. Welcome Citizen! I understand she makes about $80k a year.

  20. Scout

    that’s big bucks in that neck of the woods. I assume she doesn’t want that filthy lucre from the Godless secular state, however. She is taking the position, is she not, that because she won’t do her job, she won’t take the money? Or is she one of those left-wing, socialist welfare queens who feels she should be paid by hard-working taxpayers for not doing her job? What does the TEA Party say about this?

  21. El Guapo

    They had this big celebration with people praising God. Some Christian [sic] anti-gay websites are calling her “hero” and “martyr”. They consider this a great victory. One nit wit wrote a column saying that she should run for President.

    Meanwhile her co-workers are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

  22. Ed Myers

    The Oathkeeper Vigilante group offered to use armed resistance to protect her from being arrested and jailed so she could continue to defy a court order. To her benefit she rejected that offer. The Oathkeepers are becoming the sons of KKK.

    She says the marriage certificates that are being issued by deputies are invalid but who cares about her opinion? As long as every other entity accepts them the couple is married. It seems like a reasonable accommodation to let her not affix her name to the certificate but still allow certificates to be issued. The accommodation she wants (no gays get married in the county) seems excessively abusive to the religious freedom of local gays who feel that their God requires them to be married publically so they are not “living together in sin”.

    1. Do you have a link to that information about the oath keepers? It seems to me that their oath would be to supporting whatever the supreme Court decreed because their status is constitutionally mandated. Sorry about the typing. Holding a dog.

      There is no compromise. Same sex marriage is settled law. If she can’t act within the law, she needs to resign. No one is challenging her beliefs, they are challenging her behavior within a job description.

  23. Scout

    One of the many layers of absurdity in this woman’s position is the idea that she, personally, is the State and that in this one person state, the writ of the national government does not run. I cannot imagine anything more un-american, more anarchical, more anti-democratic than that kind of insane presumption. Sort of a Judge-Roy-Bean-the-Only-Law-West-of-the-Pecos kind of mentality. I agree with Ed, however, that, if licenses are being issued, and she’s standing around the office doing other things while holding forth on her religious views, it’s probably an acceptable compromise. The real problem was the pre-calaboose situation where not only was she not issuing licenses, but she forbade others in the office who do not necessarily share her view, from performing their public duties. Sooner or later, the citizens (or the Governor) will have to figure out whether they want to continue to publicly subsidize someone who refuses to do all of her job.

    1. So they say she was held without due process…question…I believe that contempt charges are usually for not doing what the court orders you to do.

      She had every opportunity to change her ways or resign. She chose to ignore rule of law and to do to suit herself.

      Shame on the oath keepers. They apparently aren’t much on rule of law either, are they?

Comments are closed.