Posted on 09/10/2015 6:04:09 AM PDT by wagglebee
September 9, 2015 (Catholic Culture) - So if she could not, in good conscience, issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, why didn’t Kim Davis resign from her job as county clerk? I’m not privy to her reasoning, but I have my own reasons why she should not be expected to resign.
Ordinarily, when a public official faces a crisis of conscience, the cause is either a change of responsibilities or a change of heart. Suppose a building inspector is asked to approve construction under a new code, and he firmly believes that the new buildings will be unsafe. If he cannot convince his superiors to amend the code, he should resign; he cannot carry out his responsibilities in good conscience. Or suppose (to use an example borrowed from a friend) an executioner experiences a religious conversion, and decides that capital punishment is immoral. He too should resign; he cannot carry out the duties for which he was hired.
Kim Davis cannot, in good conscience, certify that two people of the same sex are eligible for marriage. It is perfectly reasonable to argue—as Ryan Anderson has persuasively argued—that the courts should find some accommodation, so that she can preserve her integrity and yet homosexuals can obtain marriage licenses. Indeed, as I write this little essay, I learn that Judge Bunning, who sent her behind bars, has now ordered her release, provided that she no longer interferes with the process of issuing licenses. But that does not resolve the problem, in my view.
Imagine that you teach arithmetic in an elementary school. Imagine that a few misguided individuals take control of the local school committee, and push through a nonsensical new curriculum that makes it more difficult for students to learn the basics of math. You can complain, you can work to elect more sensible people to the school committee, but as long as the new curriculum is in force, you have to choose: comply with your new job description, or resign.
But now imagine that the school committee, drunk with power, rules that henceforth you must teach students that 2+2=5. You cannot do that. Moreover, you cannot meekly step aside and allow some other, more compliant teacher to tell young children that 2+2=5. This is not a matter of preference or of personal belief. It’s a matter of fact.
Kim Davis was asked to certify that two men, or two women, could be appropriate partners in a marriage. She could not, because to do so would contradict what she knew—what you and I know, what everyone has known for centuries—about the nature of marriage. Nor could she allow her deputies, working under her direct supervision, to testify to an untruth.
Father James Schall made this point for Catholic World Report:
Let’s begin with the word “marriage.” This word means the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting, raising, and educating their children in a home. If an “arrangement” between two human beings cannot instigate or beget a human child, it is not a marriage. If we insist on calling it a “marriage,” we speak equivocally. That is, we lie to ourselves about what is.The word “belief” is not the appropriate word for marriage. Marriage is a fact, not a “belief.” To imply that it is a “belief” means, in modern context, that it has no grounding in reality. It is improper to call marriage a “belief.”
Virtually every newspaper account of the confrontation in Kentucky has made the point that Kim Davis is a Christian. That is true but irrelevant. It is not because of her religious faith that Davis understands the nature of marriage. Non-Christians, too, have always understood (until the mania of the past few years) that marriage is a union of man and woman. That understanding was firmly in place long before the time of Christ.
If a court can redefine marriage, it can redefine any institution touched by the law. If the term “marriage” means no more or less than what five justices happen to prefer at the moment, then the most fundamental institution in society is at risk.
Are you really married, or could the state suddenly declare your union invalid? Could the government take custody of your children, having ruled that there is nothing special about the bond between parent and child?
With the Obergefell decision the Supreme Court overthrew not only the laws of the several states, but the laws of logic as well. In a blatant display of illegitimate power, five justices ordered not merely a redefinition of “marriage” but a redefinition of reality. And to date, no one but Kim Davis has actively resisted that usurpation.
This article appeared on Catholic Culture and is re-published with permission.
And this is a principle that the faux conservatives will NEVER understand.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
And you can't order people (deputies) to conform to your beliefs.
Is this the same guy that said she resigned yesterday?
“If a court can redefine marriage, it can redefine any institution touched by the law. If the term “marriage” means no more or less than what five justices happen to prefer at the moment, then the most fundamental institution in society is at risk.”
That’s all it has ever been to the state in the modern era. How can it be anything else? The judges, pols, or voting majority can get the state’s version wrong or right, depending on what they happen to think about it at the time. Seems to me the state doesn’t have any other way to do it, and hasn’t for while.
Freegards
I can sign on to a lot of what this article says, but this sentence here is absolutely ridiculous. What Schall is saying is that an infertile man or an infertile woman can never marry because they are incapable of producing a child. The best they can hope for is an 'arrangement'. That's highly insulting to a lot of people.
Actually, if the license bears your personal imprimatur of authorization, you can and MUST make your deputies conform to your will. The solution she and others proposed to the proper authorities (KY Legislature) prior to SCOTUS ruling was to remove the statement of authorization by the clerk from the licenses.
As far as issuing no licenses, that’s a red herring. If she did issue hetero licenses, she would have been guilty of discrimination in the eyes of nearly everyone who now cites her lack of issuance as part of the problem.
I understand that there are very many viewpoints on this topic. I do not understand how it is legal or moral to insist that someone who is an elected official cannot practice their sincerely held beliefs, despite the supposed constitutional and other legal protections.
We either believe in the freedom to exercise or we don’t. When the left makes Christians compromise on their beliefs, they always assume that “turning the other cheek” won’t be the belief that gets compromised.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There is NOTHING I've encountered with the homosexual community in the last two weeks that can be identified with;
a more perfect union,
establishment of justice,
domestic tranquility,
common defense,
general welfare,
and most importantly
to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Homosexuals cannot reproduce so they cannot be a perticipant in securing blessings because they produce no posterity
Because they cannot reproduce,
They are a culture of death, no different than islam.
They are selfish so they cannot be part of a general welfare,
They endeavor to disengage themselves so they cannot be a participant in domestic tranquility,
They seek no justice but rather special entreaty.
Homosexuality is unConstitutional and not American
They are aliens unwilling to assimulate to a pre-existing, well operating culture
They seek discord amongst the peaceful
Homosexuality is a death cult
I think you are misreading what he's saying. There is a difference between almost certainly won't and cannot.
There are several Biblical accounts of infertile or post-menopausal women becoming pregnant through Divine intervention. There is NOTHING to suggest that God would allow the same thing to happen with same gender couples.
You can tell them that they cannot legally put out licenses in YOUR name as that is forgery.
The line written is: "If an “arrangement” between two human beings cannot instigate or beget a human child, it is not a marriage."
Five justices.
Why couldn’t the homos do what they have always done - shop around until they found someone who would marry them? Instead of forcing an elected official to do it.
At this point in these proceedings, you still have to ask that question...?
Well this is what he said:
"Let’s begin with the word “marriage.” This word means the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting, raising, and educating their children in a home. If an “arrangement” between two human beings cannot instigate or beget a human child, it is not a marriage. If we insist on calling it a “marriage,” we speak equivocally. That is, we lie to ourselves about what is."
Kind of hard to misread that, unless the quote was taken out of context. What he is saying is that a marriage between a man and a women that is incapable of begetting a child is not a marriage. That is not only wrong, it is a redefinition of marriage as Jesus Christ defined it in the Gospels.
There is NOTHING to suggest that God would allow the same thing to happen with same gender couples.
And I am certainly not suggesting that the union of a same sex couple meets the Biblical defintion of marriage. Far from it. But the union of a man and a woman in the lifetime covenant of marriage IS a marriage, regardless of their ability to procreate. And regardless of what Schall may think.
Yes, I read it. And his claim is that if a man and a woman marry knowing that for medical reasons they can never beget children then he says that is not a marriage but an arrangement.
I would suggest that a man and a woman who marry and stay married for life but who are unable to have children, then that is still a marriage in every Biblical sense of the term. However, if a man marries and divorces, then marries again and cranks out 20 kids then that is the arrangement, and not a marriage.
I don’t see the claim that you are seeing. I see him talking about a same sex couple.
I see him talking about any infertile couple, same sex or opposite sex.
I don’t. He’s talking about marriage being male/female in one breath and in the next is talking about an ‘arrangement’ that cannot produce a child.
Again, you are equating "cannot" with "almost certainly won't" and that is where the confusion.
Abraham's wife Sarah was almost certain not to have a child, but she had Isaac because God ordained it.
What he means is that a generic man and woman are anatomically capable of having children, two men are and neither are two woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.