Posted on 09/04/2015 4:15:38 PM PDT by yongin
have said these past couple of days that as gay rights and the ideology at its heart continues to conquer our culture, I expect us small-o orthodox Christians to have to take a hard, sacrificial stand against the state and society, for the sake of religious liberty. Kim Davis’s situation, I’ve said, is not the hill to die on.
The reason for this is certainly contestable, but here it is, in a nutshell.
1. Kim Davis’s position is unwinnable. Nobody seriously expects her to get gay marriage overturned, or even to succeed in carving out a special zone of protection for public officials who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to carry out lawful decisions of the courts. Even if we believe that the Obergefell decision lacks moral legitimacy, there can be no doubt that as a matter of legal procedure, the Supreme Court’s decision is the law. Our side lost that battle decisively. Kim Davis’s stance, while it may be personally courageous, is going to result in another defeat, because it cannot be otherwise in our system. The only point of backing it is to flip the bird to the state and to the broader culture — something I have great sympathy for, but it’s a pointless gesture that can only hurt us in the battles to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
Kim Davis is a controversial figure in her own time. She makes us uncomfortable because she suggests a comfortable era for Christians in America may be coming to an end. We may reach a point where we can’t dodge anymore: either we will surrender our faith for all practical purposes, or we will suffer to maintain a stand for righteousness. But she isn’t the villain.
The villains are five Supreme Court Justices who have decided to become Philosopher Kings and Queens. They have made the rule of law a sick joke and turned the plain meaning of the Constitution on its head to build the world they wanted. They’ve been enabled by spineless Republicans who not only refused to defy illegitimate orders of the court but have abdicated exercising the legitimate Constitutional power to restrain the court’s unlawful impulses.
Christians can stand with Kim Davis in prayer and financial support or they can delude themselves and dismiss Ms. Davis as a pestilent troublemaker getting her just desserts and that the US government would never jail anyone simply for following their faith. They can believe that only for so long before reality catches up with us all.
Well that might just be right.....but it would take a whole lot more for me to get off the Cruz ship. I’m completely sold and was before he announced.
Besides even FR we consider the source of posters as well.....still I do like reading his stuff and learn....his posts generally incite me to look further...to see if he’s right or not.
As you know, I’ve been harping against the judicial supremacist lie for years, warning about how dangerous it is to this free republic. For a very long time it felt very much like me and only a few others were the lone voices on this.
Circumstances are once again vindicating that long effort, and more and more are coming to an understanding of this critical matter. You can see it in the posts all over FR today.
Fundamentally, all I’m trying to do is reestablish the plumb line of principle as laid out in my last post. It isn’t about me running for office. I’d rather not, frankly, given a choice. I’d much rather tend my garden and raise my kids and grand kids.
But the battles we’re fighting are vital to the survival of that posterity in liberty.
And if no one else will lead, I will. I must. No matter how futile it may appear on the face of it. And no matter how much hatred and ridicule may come from certain quarters.
You’re right on those... unfortunately our society today operates a great deal from a progressive/leftist viewpoint with a lot of Humanistic approaches in the political theater. Our educational system has seen to that and has been couped by the left almost entirely.
I hinted of disobedience to wrong and got hooted at as a “non-conservative.” Oh, only LIBERALS pick and choose based on SOMETHING HIGHER!
Liberals are deluded but even they understand some fundamental principles, albeit used inappropriately.
As C. S. Lewis put it, evil is goodness used in a wrong way.
And Cruz doesn’t want any of that?
You've stated it far more eloquently than I ever can. Excellent post and you're 1000% right.
Those who stick their heads in the sand and refuse to see the battle before us will be the first casualties in the coming war. They'll have brought it on themselves.
Good luck.
I didn’t say that.
He just has a couple of critical points wrong. Dead wrong.
I think that model was kind of a lazy model and one suited to views of legislative activity that involved cranking out volumes of ill considered material. “We can always count on the court to tell us what this stuff really ought to be....”
I don’t know any exact answer, but various remedies have been proposed including the so called Bork Amendment.
Thanks.
If they put all of the Christians in jail there won’t be anyone working and paying taxes to fund their government.
Specify your beefs, don’t just wave and gesture a broadside.
The Constitution DOES NOT grant the power to the USSC, or even the Federal Courts, both of which have usurped the Constitutional Rights of individuals, and of states, that have been in place for the last 230+ years.
If this doesn't erupt into something larger and more meaningful, sparking the type conviction and soul searching equal to or greater than that of the Civil Rights era movement, then our country is LOST.
That point cannot be understated.
Well, okay.
Cruz is, by training and choice, a judicial supremacist.
He supports legislation such as the “fetal pain” bills that encode permission to kill babies, all of them, as long as they are killed on schedule and by an arbitrary set of man-made rules. This is immoral and unconstitutional. God and the Constitution absolutely require equal protection under the law. It’s not optional.
His proposed constitutional amendment on marriage is pro-choice for states. In other words, it allows states to have “gay marriage” if they want to. That’s ridiculous. If you’re going to go to the trouble of a constitutional amendment, protect marriage. Don’t beat around the bush.
No amendment is required to protect marriage. All that is required are representatives in the legislative and executive offices who will keep their oaths and rein in the judicial oligarchs.
I agree with your post. My question to either of you, what are some practical things that could be done to break free of this coup d’état ? My gut feeling is the answer lies in action at the state level, and that if a few states began the correct action they would lead the way to a snowballing effect and more and more would join in. But what exactly should states do to start unraveling this mess? I don’t mean little stop gap measures like what have been done in Texas and other states to protect civil servants on this one issue, ... I mean big, far reaching, tide turning kinds of changes that can put a halt on these judicial pronouncements that are effectively overturning our constitution as well as the voted will of the people in many states on issues of huge importance.
The problem we have with judicial supremacy was baked into the Constitution. Someone had to answer the question of what comported with the Constitution and the Court did serve decently many times for that purpose. More evil things like chattel slavery were baked into it too. It wasn’t a consciousness raising by itself that dealt with that problem; it was a lot of civil disobedience culminating in civil war and amendments.
Something like a Bork Amendment or the ability to retention-vote the USSC members might help there. But I have to ask those who just want to flip the USSC the bird, you and what ruling army? If the USSC cannot just wish a different Constitution into being, can you either? The problem needs to be dug out from under, the hard way.
My prediction: the answer is going to look like a constitutional amendment(s).
SCOTUS invalidated the core of the relevant law rendering it moot/unintelligible. It cannot stand as is; convention is that when part of a law is struck down the whole law is struck down unless otherwise specifically enacted with severance directives. The KY definition of “marriage” was eviscerated, leaving no definition of the word to act on.
Yes, SCOTUS very much has that power and exercises it often.
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.