Yes, his name is pronounced "weiner".
Posted on 09/08/2015 1:44:47 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a story that has received national coverage, a Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Davis, was found in contempt of court for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple. She was jailed on Thursday.
“My conscience will not allow it,” Davis, an Apostolic Christian, said to U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning. “God’s moral law convicts me and conflicts with my duties.”
By way of background: Ms. Davis had been ordered to comply with the law and refused. The judge can’t fire her from her job, so citing her for contempt of court was the only means at his disposal. She could remain free, the judge said, if she gave permission to her deputies to sign the certificates instead. Ms. Davis refused, determined to make her stand. She wanted this confrontation, on this issue, to unfold in this way.
This case raises several questions, beginning with this one: If Ms. Davis was a judge supervising a divorce proceeding, does she believe a court entering a divorce decree would also conflict with her duties? Or is gay marriage rather than, say, heterosexual divorce, the only issue she’s willing to go to the mat for when it comes to fidelity to “God’s moral law”? (Ms. Davis might want to re-read Matthew 19:9, where Jesus says, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”)
As for the option of resigning if she believes issuing marriage licenses to gay couples violate her conscience, as many others have done, Ms. Davis said, “I would have to either make a decision to stand or I would have to buckle down and leave. And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word.” Calling herself a vessel that the Lord has chosen for this time and place, Ms. Davis said she feels empowered by “God’s authority” to defy the U.S. Supreme Court and deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
It’s no surprise that Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee weighed in on behalf of Ms. Davis. Governor Huckabee, for his part, tweeted, “Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country. We must defend Religious Liberty!”
This argument is both wildly overstated and muddled. For one thing, if an atheist or Muslim refused to issue marriage licenses to gays, they, too, would be held in contempt of court. And imagine the reaction from Governor Huckabee and others if a person of the Muslim faith refused to enforce a civil law by invoking his conception of God’s law (sharia law).
Beyond that, to argue that public officials can simply refuse to uphold laws they don’t agree with is a prescription for chaos and lawlessness. Don’t Governor Huckabee and others see the problem of demanding laws to protect religious liberty while encouraging public officials to break the laws with which they disagree?
Here it’s worth recalling the exchange between Thomas More and William Roper in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons. For not arresting Richard Rich, an untrustworthy figure who has nonetheless not done anything illegal, Roper accuses More of respecting man’s law over God’s law. More says he would let the Devil himself go free until he broke the law, to which Roper says, “So, now you give the Devil benefit of law.”
More: Yes, what would you do?
Roper: Cut a great road through the law to get after to the Devil. Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
One can easily see the problem with the Davis-Huckabee line of reasoning. Assume that during a Huckabee administration liberals decided Bible verses about welcoming the stranger and alien in your midst were the basis to defend “sanctuary cities” and, therefore, refused to abide by federal immigration laws. When told they needed to comply or face legal consequences, those breaking the law claimed religious liberties protection – and declared that penalizing them for their lawlessness qualified as the “criminalization of Christianity.” Mr. Huckabee would rightly view that argument as absurd. One wouldn’t be criminalizing Christianity; one would be criminalizing those who don’t follow the law.
As for Huckabee’s invocation of Abraham Lincoln and Dred Scott as a justification for what Davis did, Governor Huckabee is simply wrong. Lincoln didn’t call for people to ignore or “disregard” the decision. Quite the opposite, in fact. Lincoln called on the Supreme Court to overturn it and the public to express its differences with it. Here’s a relevant passage from Stephen Oates’s biography of Lincoln, With Malice Toward None:
Now for the Republican opposition to Dred Scott. Republicans were not promoting resistance or disobedience to the decision, for that would be rebellion. Rather they regarded the idea in Dred Scott as erroneous, and through the power of criticism and persuasion they would work to have the court overrule itself, as it had often done in the past.
Regardless of where one stands on gay marriage, the idea that granting a marriage license to a gay couple is the moral equivalent of enslaving another human being is, to put it gently, deeply confused. Only a person who has no conception of the horror of slavery would invoke it.
Kim Davis may well be a person of sincere views. She may also believe she’s taking a principled moral stand. In fact, she’s being selective in which of God’s moral laws she insists must be obeyed – and obeyed not by those attending her church but by those living in our broader society. She could have allowed her deputies to issue the marriage licenses, preventing her from violating her conscience. But that wasn’t enough. She wanted to make this a (figurative) hill to die on.
In doing so, she’s inadvertently doing a disservice to her faith, furthering the impression to a watching world that sex, and homosexuality in particularly, is a fixation of modern-day Christianity. The result is to reduce “a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex,” in the words of David Brooks. There was no need for Ms. Davis – or Governor Huckabee and Senator Cruz – to elevate this issue into a national fight Christians are destined to lose, and, in this case, ought to lose.
I understand some fights can’t be avoided, and you don’t always get to choose the terrain on which you battle. I believe, too, that the Christian view of human sexuality isn’t capricious or arbitrary; it is based on the creation order and human nature. Yet some evangelical Christians have proved rather adept at helping the cause of those who want to portray their faith as graceless, a blunt instrument in the culture war instead of a field hospital, quicker to judge others than attending to those who are struggling, wounded and broken. There is a side to Christianity that is captivating and can win hearts, yet we’ve found a way to hide it under a bushel.
Christians are in a period of transition and diminishing cultural influence. How we deal with our place in this changing world in a way that is both faithful and extends the hand of grace to others, that gives to others what God has given to us, that leads toward reconciliation and redemption, requires wisdom and discernment. Kim Davis and those who are rallying to her cause are showing neither.
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God!
The man who wrote this sounds like a coward.
The Judge found God in contempt. I bet he can’t wait for his own judgment.
Another faux “Christian” chimes in. Toss him on the pile with the rest.
WRONG. She was ordered to comply with a court ruling which was contrary to the law.
Actually, he sounds like a covert leftist.
According to some people, every fight is the wrong fight.
She wouldn’t enter divorce decrees. That is a judge’s job.
What law was she breaking?
The LEGAL issue in the case of Kim Davis issue is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue. You get screwed up when you mix up morality with the constitutional limitations on the federal government.
The LEGAL issue is the feds have NO constitutional authority to meddle in marriage and unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny and should be resisted, rejected, and nullified by the individual states..
There is a couple of issues where this intwit writer weant wrong.
1) Kentucky never passed a law through the legislature saying sodomites could marry. So there is no controlling authority under which they are to be issued, except under the whim of some black robed tyrant.
2) The remedy was not to jail her, these sodomites could have just as easily gone to the next jurisdiction where the clerk would issue said marriage license. So they have not necessarily been grievously harmed by her actions.
So, just be aware that when its you or me, this guy will not be there for us. It will be the wrong fight.
I don’t even know where to begin with this tripe.
He does not have his facts strait. The SCOTUS does not make law just decisions. She was obeying the laws of her county and state. If she were a judge she would not be able to give a divorce to a gay couple because there is no stat law covering it. The article was too long so could not make it through it.
>> that gives to others what God has given to us, that leads toward reconciliation
Reconciliation in the church is gayspeak for the path to sodomite pastors...and youth leaders.
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Marriage is the foundation of that society. Man and woman, for the purpose of becoming a family and raising healthy children.
Homosexuals are attacking and undermining the foundation of the Judeo-Christian society. They are working for the anti-Christian forces, which are alive and well.
Good for her!!!
"In doing so, she’s inadvertently doing a disservice to her faith, furthering the impression to a watching world that sex, and homosexuality in particularly, is a fixation of modern-day Christianity. The result is to reduce “a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex,” in the words of David Brooks. There was no need for Ms. Davis – or Governor Huckabee and Senator Cruz – to elevate this issue into a national fight Christians are destined to lose, and, in this case, ought to lose."
This author is just so wrong!!!
She is honoring God and all true Christians!
She will not authorize mirage certificates for sodomites!!
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.