Madonna's Brother Defends Jailed Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples

Madonna's brother, Christopher Ciccone, is speaking out in defense of the county clerk in Kentucky who was recently jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Ciccone, who is openly gay, posted a message to Facebook on Friday in which he said that Kim Davis should be granted the right deny the licenses, with Ciccone citing her "religious freedom."

"The county clerk in [Kentucky] deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a Muslim [woman] who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without your man's approval," he wrote.

Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."

"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

Ciccone began his entertainment career as one of Madonna's backup dancers before moving on to direct music videos for such stars as Dolly Parton.

The county clerk in Kentucy deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a muslim women who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without ur mans approval.....perspective is everything.....this woman is a civil servant, she is required to follow federal law.....but why should she....when DOJ and other civil authories don't follow federal law when they choose not to.....i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of "sanctuary cities".....i always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches.......these things aside....this is why we have elections.....if the folks of this county in Kentucy don't want her as the county clerk....then don't have to vote for her.....that is how a democracy works....not to mention the courts.

In the mean time.....since when are we the arbiter of other peoples faith?.......can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i'm not mistaken, it's in the constitution.....something about religious freedom or something......selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy....freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength. Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice. Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners. Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion?...or must we destroy her in order for here to betray her faith. No matter how we judge its truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.

…why couldn’t you get a county clerk elected who was anti-hunter or anti-fishing, and they refused to hand out hunting licenses or fishing licenses? In some states, it’d done via a online process and avoids the country apparatus, but in some....it’s still at the county clerk’s office.

There is a fundamental difference here that a lot of folks are missing: sodomite unions are fundamentally a violation of the natural law. Hunting is not a violation of the natural law nor is fishing.

The crux of this case is the following quote from the judge:

“The idea of natural law superceding [sic] this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning told Rowan County clerk Kim Davis.

Sodomite unions are a violation of natural law. The judge acknowledges this yet says that the court's authority supercedes the natural law.

To put it in context, here are a couple of historical quotes that may be of interest:

“This natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.”
- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Introduction, Part the Second (1765)

So Blackstone believed that human laws in violation of the natural law were no laws at all.

Here's another, more lengthy, quote that captures the thought even better:

It is therefore an absurd extravagance in some philosophers to assert, that all things are necessarily just which are established by the civil laws and the institutions of nations. Are then the- laws of tyrants just, simply because they are laws ? Suppose the thirty tyrants of Athens had imposed certain laws on the Athenians ? or, suppose again that these Athenians were delighted with these tyrannical laws, would these laws on that account have been considered just ? For my own part, I do not think such laws deserve any greater estimation than that passed during our own interregnum, which ordained that the dictator should be empowered to put to death with impunity whatever citizens he pleased, without hearing them in their own defence.
For there is but one essential justice which cements society, and one law which establishes this justice. This law is right reason, which is the true rule of all commandments and prohibitions. Whoever neglects this law, whether written or unwritten, is necessarily unjust and wicked.
But if justice consists in submission to written laws and national customs, and if, as the same school affirms, every thing must be measured by utility alone, he who thinks that such conduct will be advantageous to him will neglect the laws, and break them if it is in his power. And the consequence is, that real justice has really no existence if it have not one by nature, and if that which is established as such on account of utility is overturned by some other utility.
But if nature does not ratify law, then all the virtues may lose their sway. For what becomes of generosity, patriotism, or friendship ] Where will the desire of benefitting our neighbours, or the gratitude that acknowledges kindness, be able to exist at all ? For all these virtues proceed from our natural inclination to love mankind. And this is the true basis of justice, and without this not only the mutual charities of men, but the religious services of the Gods, would be at an end ; for these are preserved, as I imagine, rather by the natural sympathy which subsists between divine and human beings, than by mere fear and timidity.
Marchus Tullius Cicero, De Legibus, Cap I (circa 50 AD)

The point being that who enforces human laws that are contrary to nature and right reason is the evil one.

You simply can't trivialize this by comparing formal cooperation with the evil State recognition of sodomy (a violation of natural law) with mundane matters like hunting, fishing, or even driver licenses. You can't equate it with matters of illegal aliens.

If the SCOTUS made a ruling ordering all physicians to perform abortions (in support of the invented "right" of a woman to kill her child), would you stand with the physician [possibly working in a public hospital] who said that he would not do so? Or would you say, "bake the cake." That's about the most timely analogy there is.

but until it’s overturned, gov’t workers have to follow the law.

There is NO law on gay marriage.

A ruling is not law.

No state has codified the Supreme Court decision into legislation, unless it previously had a law allowing gay marriage.

In Kentucky, the law on marriage is very clear--marriage is between one man and one woman.

The clerk is the only one following the law, as it exists.

Even then, there is a dispute as to whether the Supreme Court decision effectively wiped out all State laws on marriage, thus creating a situation where there is actually no laws on marriage in the State of Kentucky. The Leftists keep repeating that this is now the law of the land.

That is false, and must be resisted vociferously.

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.

"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who himself is openly gay.