Your Sister is in Jail

But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than any human authority…”

The ink was barely dry on U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s order sending Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis to jail for following in the apostles’ footsteps, obeying God rather than man before the Minutemen of the “me too! I’m good just like you!” faction of Christ’s Holy Church took to the interwebs to declare their solidarity with the pitchfork waving mob. It is not my purpose to go down any of the gazillions of rabbit trails, logical and otherwise that sprout like toadstools across the manure-rich landscape of social media after the rain of such schadenfreude laden storms. Lots of people have all the time in the world to enjoy their ideologically drunken bar fights, thump their chests in worldwide anonymity and go to bed more convinced than ever of their extreme righteousness. God bless them and the important work they do!

No. My only point is that your sister is in jail. How dare you side with the reprobates who put her there.

Spare the twisted rationale about oaths requiring us to violate conscience. Your prosperous, secure, rights affirming country was founded by people who ran screaming from Europe so they could obey God and conscience without incurring the wrath of the state. Do not attempt to fall back on subtlety and “nuance,” the rebel’s code word for “actually, we can do whatever the hell we want.” “Nuance” got us slavery supported by Bible-ignorant church people. Moral clarity and fidelity to God’s word got us emancipation and blood-soaked abolition.

Sides. They’re real and they matter. Choose you this day whom you will serve. When Jesus Christ, who you confess as Lord over your life confirms his Father’s ancient definition of marriage…

“And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

… do you side with those dedicated to overthrowing your Father’s good order? Why?

The Bible, your guide to life in Christ is the grand chronicle of God’s ceaseless effort to restore His beloved human creation to fellowship and put His family back together. That effort includes the loss of His one and only Son and the experience of grief on a scale unimaginable to us. That’s how much His family matters to Him. That’s how much you mean to Him. That’s how much your sister means to Him.

Your sister is in jail. Pray for her. Support her. Treat her as you would hope to be treated if the state landed on you for obeying God.

It’s what a family is supposed to do.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to Your Sister is in Jail

  1. Oh, thank you! Your words are much appreciated.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Reblogged this on See, there's this thing called biology… and commented:
    I really share these sentiments and so appreciate seeing them worded so well.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I have nothing but concern for her. But there’s no moral justification for BOTH refusing to do the job (for religious reasons) and ALSO refusing to resign the position. This is such an ordinary choice! We’ve all had to face it when a boss or a business asked us to do something objectionable. If you have any sense of honor, you quit!

    Liked by 1 person

    • lang3063 says:

      I used to work at a hospital where abortions were performed. Part of my job was to deliver instruments to the O.R. The problem should be obvious. I don’t have the time or inclination to get into details but people of goodwill can find solutions if they want to. We didn’t build this country so that people should have to quit jobs when there are conflicts with conscience; quite the opposite, in fact.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Actually, it’s completely ordinary to have to quit when a boss or business asks you to do something you object to. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t had to face that!

        I’m a medical asst. and imaging tech. I’ve had to help dig bullets out of gang members to save their lives. Did I have an option to refuse to treat them, even though I KNOW they are engaged in an evil lifestyle? No. Why? I took an oath to serve the public, every member, no exceptions. If I couldn’t have done that, the only moral choice is to resign.

        Like

  4. Wally Fry says:

    That picture pretty much sums it up doesn’t it? It’s quite a shocking picture. Times are tough, and likely to get tougher. We have to support our sister for sure. Times like these, although we of course have God, we also have each other. A threefold cord is not easily broken and all that. Bless you brother for posting this.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Paul says:

    Her job conflicted with her beliefs. Then it is obvious that she should change jobs – not defy the oath she took to the government. No where in the Bible does it say that you have to keep your job or that it is your job to change others’ beliefs. Besides which she can’t be Christian for in all the New testament neither Christ nor his followers mention homosexuality even once – not once in hundreds of pages of scriptures. And yet they mention “Thou shall not judge” hundreds if not thousands of times. She has no right to stand in judgement of others and if her job conflicts with her beliefs then she should change jobs. As a Christian she likely wouldn’t take the job as hangman either – does that mean there shouldn’t be a hangman?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Paul says:

      Hard one lang. Yes, we should support her – because she is human. That does not mean we have to support her decision. Love the person, disagree with the action.

      Like

      • lang3063 says:

        I deleted my original comment. It’s 5:30 am here and I have to get to work, wanted to think more. The post isn’t about supporting people because they’re human. Who isn’t? I’m sure there’s a long list of humans we would agree ought not to be supported. While there are arguments to be made about whether her decision was correct it can’t be denied she is acting on conscience, guided by Scripture. It further can’t be argued that this situation is exactly what our country was founded to prevent. My only real point is that there are members of her family, literally her brothers and sisters who are glad she’s in jail. What’s up with that?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Paul says:

        Yeah, it’s 5:45am here. Sounds like the situation is a lot more complex than what we see if he family is “glad”to see her in jail. Are you saying we should support her because she is Christian? Because there is no mention of homosexuality on the New Testament – that’s the part of the Bible Christians follow isn’t it?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Paul, I’m afraid someone has led you to believe something that isn’t true. First, “All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness.” Second, there are numerous mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament. Start with Romans 1 which describes the practice and clearly ties it with sin.

        Becky

        Liked by 3 people

      • Paul says:

        Sorry Becky – I misspoke. I should have said that there was no mention of homosexuality by Jesus.

        Liked by 1 person

      • madblog says:

        Let’s put this one to bed. Jesus confirmed the totality of the Old Testament, declaring that he was its fulfillment and that not one iota of it was to be disregarded. (This is not to say that the New Covenant which he established would not alter the way that we would relate to The Law, but that’s for another time).
        God respects the minds of the human creatures he designed.The Bible is for people who are willing to think through the connections it makes, draw conclusions, follow the threads of thought and meaning to their truthful conclusions; it is not for simplistic proof-texting of negatives. Those who do so, using its passages as weapons, will always demonstrate their ignorance. Believers do this too and it’s a plain insult to the Word.
        You cannot call the Old Testament and the writings of Paul irrelevant and say that only the gospels count if you want to be listened to after you’re finish speaking.

        Secondly, Jesus spoke quite clearly on the matter:
        Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
        Plain meaning: This is what God calls marriage, this is the sexual relationship that God intended, and what is otherwise is NOT what God intended.

        No, you won’t find a quote from Jesus with exactly the words: “I condemn homosexuality.” But if you are a person with a brain, a willingness to understand what it says rather than to confirm your agenda, and you read the Bible there is no way you are concluding that homosexuality is alright with Jesus.
        Please read this handy essay with most of the pertinent verses in one place:
        http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/did-jesus-condemn-homosexuality/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Alternatively let’s put it to bed this way.

        She’s breaking the law and not fulfilling the terms of her employment.

        If she chooses not to resign her $80,000 a year job, then she should be impeached.

        There we go, safely tucked up and in bed, in a country that is secular. Note, secular.

        Like

      • lang3063 says:

        roughseasinthemed:
        What law is she breaking? Cite the statue, please. At this point she’s not even violating the state constitution she swore to uphold. She’s in jail for contempt of court, not a violation of a specific law. Unless, of course, you’d like to make the argument that a judge’s ruling is indistinguishable from legislation passed by duly elected representatives of the people, thereby dispensing with the need for pesky constitutions, legislatures and elections.

        She absolutely could be impeached. That’s the proper avenue for addressing her conduct. Unfortunately that brings us back to that cumbersome democratic process and it’s unpredictable outcomes. Or maybe not so unpredictable. I understand she represents the majority position on this issue among those who put her in office, so relying on the people for a preferred outcome is a dicey proposition. Better to leave it to the elites.

        Like

      • Here is a wonderful article which explains the power of federal courts to cite people for contempt of court. Note 78 of that article cites the federal statutes (which is legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President) which codify federal court contempt powers. The law she is breaking is the court order which commanded her to do her job.

        That court has power to issue such rulings pursuant to powers ultimately granted to it by the U.S. Constitution. So, actually one proper avenue is to ask a federal judge to order compliance with federal law. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you or others might have as to the law involved in this case.

        Liked by 3 people

      • lang3063 says:

        siriusbiznus:
        Thanks for the information. Given the prevailing characterization that she “broke the law” I don’t think people understand that the one and only “law” she broke was the court order. To my knowledge there is currently no Federal law or Kentucky state law requiring the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples. As I understand all this the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that the Federal Constitution includes the right to SSM. It now falls to appropriate legislatures to write or alter laws in accordance with this new interpretation. At this point, the Ky state constitution, which she swore to uphold is in conflict with the SC interpretation of the Federal Constitution and in fact forbids her to issue such licenses. It has not yet been amended. The state legislature has not enacted legislation. Congress has passed no law. I realize there is a trail of court rulings and the governor’s order but it seems to me that to characterize such fast-track enforcement as “laws” is like bailing water from a leaking boat and calling it a repair. There is no statute.

        I don’t question Judge Bunning’s authority to hold Davis in contempt and, for the sake of keeping things manageable I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his motivation. But the power to deprive someone of their God given liberty until they do what you tell them has been monstrously abused on many occasions. The fact that he put her in jail doesn’t mean she belongs there.

        Last but not least the SC interpretation of the 14th Amendment (I think) to include a right to SSM is brand new and was clearly not in anybody’s mind when it was adopted. It will be decades before the implications, appropriate statutory expressions and applications will be worked out. This in contrast to the 1st Amendment which has a long history as perhaps the very foundation of American liberty. Balancing right against right is always a dicey proposition but if the creation of a new right causes long standing, well understood foundational rights to evaporate we might as well burn the Constitution and appoint a council of wizards to rule us. While government officials or Federal employees MAY, on occasion need to reach some compromise in order to carry out their duties such compromises MUST protect their rights as American citizens. No such consideration has been extended to Ms. Davis, not in Judge Bunning’s court and certainly not in the kangaroo court of public opinion. Regardless of anyone’s views on SSM, Kim Davis is clearly being made an example of.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hey there!

        It would take a post for me to explain why, but the really short version is that she lost a case. My understanding (and I’ll try to find the court documents to get a clearer picture) is that several couples applied for a court decision requiring her to do her job (a writ of mandamus, as it’s called sometimes). So, the couples argued why she should do it, and her attorney argued why she shouldn’t have to do it.

        The law that controlled the decision was that Supreme Court decision in Hodges. The federal court has to obey the Supreme Court, so they had to tell Ms. Davis to issue the licenses. Effectively, then, what happened was that she lost a case, only instead of losing money or being given a jail term, she was told to issue marriage certificates.

        I know you raise some concerns with the 14th amendment and some other federalism concerns, but that would take a lot more space, and it’s kind of unwieldy to do in a comment box.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lang3063 says:

        In other words, instead of being assessed a fine or being sentenced to a defined term of imprisonment as a penalty for her actions she is being coerced by the power of the state to violate her conscience as the condition for ending indefinite imprisonment. This means she is receiving harsher treatment than a “common criminal.” My understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the parties bringing suit could obtain marriage licenses with or without her cooperation. The harm to them was minimal, if in fact there was any harm at all, so their “rights” were never truly at issue. The only grievance they brought before the court was that they couldn’t get licenses from Ms. Davis, not that they couldn’t get licenses. The actions of the court restored no rights that had been taken away. If Ms. Davis “failed to do her job” as the narrative uncritically insists then she should be held accountable by supervisors, managers, etc and ultimately to the people who put her in office, not to litigants to whom she had done no harm. I think this brings us back to the same place. The newly defined “right” to SSM not only supersedes ANY protection Ms. Davis is entitled to under the 1st amendment but also may be used as a club to compel her compliance even if her failure to comply harms nobody.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Actually, that would not be an accurate statement as to the law involved. If the couples lawfully could not have gotten a license from Ms. Davis, then they would have lost their cases. So, the principle involved is that Ms. Davis has no lawful reason to reject the applications of married couples that sued her.

        Furthermore, the court apparently did look into other measures regarding the matter. Ms. Davis was asked whether or not she could allow her employees to issue certificates, and she informed the court that she would interfere with any of her employees who didn’t object to issuing same-sex licenses. It was at that point, when she was talking about interfering with the conscience of others, that jail was looked at.

        Really, it looks like she’s in jail for no other reason than she said she’d interfere with her employees who had no objection to issuing licenses. This was after the court offered to let her abstain from doing it herself. It’s difficult for her to argue that she has a right to her conscience, but that it overrides everyone else’s.

        Like

      • lang3063 says:

        So it looks like we’re all collecting bits and pieces from the internet. Your knowledge of the case seems to be pretty comprehensive. Where are you getting your information?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’m having to get it from wherever I can. I’ve read commentary from the New York Times to Breitbart. Here is one article from the Wall Street Journal which mentions how Ms. Davis chose jail time.

        Apparently Judge Bunning did offer to get rid of the contempt order if she promised not to interfere with her deputies performing their jobs. She couldn’t promise that. Personally, it’s unheard of (at least as I’m aware of) for a federal judge to be that nice regarding a contempt hearing.

        Like

      • David says:

        Oops, meant to put this down here.

        “Apparently Judge Bunning did offer to get rid of the contempt order if she promised not to interfere with her deputies performing their jobs. She couldn’t promise that.”

        This appears to be the key to the whole matter. If Davis’ personal judgement of the morality of a pending wedding prevents the couple from obtaining a licenses, then there’s a problem. Clerks do not have the authority to deny licenses on the basis of the morals of the clerk. Clerks do not have the power to interfere with the rights of others on the basis of the clerk’s personal beliefs. They’ve never had this power. Making moral judgements is not in the job description.

        However, if Davis’ failure to do her job does not interfere in any way with the issuing of licenses to any couple legally entitled to the licenses, and as long as she doesn’t issue any licenses herself, then her beliefs do not interfere with the rights of others. If it’s just as easy to get a license when Davis doesn’t do her job as it is when Davis does do her job, then it doesn’t matter if she wants to sit in a corner and judge others. She can judge away. Now, I do hope that she’s willing to take a pay cut when she fails to do her job, but I guess that’s a matter her personal moral standards.

        So, if Davis says that she won’t interfere with the rights of others, if her failure to do her job doesn’t interfere in any way, shape of form with any legally-entitled applicant’s ability to get their wedding licenses in the county in question, then perhaps this matter can be resolved.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lang3063 says:

        siriusbiznus:
        Thank you for going to all the trouble. A few points.

        First, I have not questioned Judge Bunning’s rightful authority or insisted that his ruling is incorrect. I believe it IS incorrect for reasons already stated but, as I am not a judge and only “know what I read in the paper” about this case I defer to His Honor. My statement that she is being treated more harshly than a common criminal is a simple fact. Regardless of how the contempt process works a common criminal is judged by a jury, and given a defined sentence, often with opportunity to shorten that sentence by good behavior. Ms. Davis can rot in jail till she does what she’s told.

        Second, if it is necessary to have Ms. Davis’ word that she will not interfere with the clerks in her office, doesn’t that mean the licenses are still her responsibility? Isn’t that actually a cosmetic solution meant to give everybody a way out without actually resolving anything? Seems to me there ought to be somebody around who can issue licenses whether Ms. Davis likes it or not. If such is not the case then the licenses are still approved by her regardless of which clerk signs in her name. Judges and lawyers are sophisticated thinkers. Surely they understood that the choice they offered was no choice at all (if I understand it correctly.) If that’s the case then no serious accommodation of her 1st Amendment rights was considered.

        Third, while there may or may not be activists strewn along the path through the legal system the two parties who are truly responsible for this circus are the plaintiffs and the media. According to Wikipedia (quick and dirty “research,” I know) there are two counties in Kentucky refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples with a third that may do so. Not a peep from the media; they like their inflammatory narratives short, shrill and as free of pesky “facts” as they can get away with. Details can dribble out as the need arises. As for the plaintiffs they do indeed have a point. County clerks should obey the law. But since their victory in the overthrow of thousands of years worth of human history was only weeks old you’d think they could drive down the road to the next county while civilization sorts through the havoc they have wrought. But no. Like Madame Defarge they must seize the long awaited opportunity to burn dissent to the ground and they must do it today.

        Last, while you are more than welcome to continue to post on this topic I’m gonna stop now. The points you raise are important and worth discussing but I’ve wandered far from the point of the original post.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, here are my notes on some of the points raised that I promised in an earlier comment. I can rely on them to accurately depict my position on the matter.

        Like

      • sirius, according to the Washington Post article I linked to, the law governing this issue is the First Amendment (reminds me of years ago when a newspaper reporter was held in contempt of court and spent endless days in jail because he wouldn’t give up his sources. In the end, it was established that the freedom of the press trumped the court’s demand. But I digress). There are accommodations in both Federal and Kentucky state law for just this sort of case. And the issue wasn’t that Ms. Davis wanted to prevent the others in her office from doing their work. What she is objecting to is her name being on those marriage licenses—as a matter of conscience. I hope you read that article. It is a little technical, but very clear about the issues.

        Becky

        Like

      • Hey Becky,

        I had read a different Post article, but I just got done reading the article you posted above. The state RFRA wouldn’t have applied because it was federal law that required her to act. The Supremacy Clause resolves any conflicts between state and federal law in favor of federal law.

        Suffice it to say that if the federal RFRA allowed Ms. Davis to avoid issuing certificates herself, it wouldn’t have prevented her office from doing so. That’s a big distinction that your cited article missed.

        If you’ve noticed, Ms. Davis has been released from custody upon Judge Bunning receiving word that the office has been issuing certificates. So if her interference with her deputies wasn’t an issue, I’d be interested to find a different explanation of why she got let out.

        Like

      • Well, sirus, we’re back to the issue that the Supreme Court can’t make law, so I’m not sure what Federal law required Ms. Davis to act. Obeying a court order?

        I’m also wondering how this will play out because again I heard on network news that she does not want her name on the marriage licenses. I don’t know if this will happen or what she’ll do if it doesn’t.

        At least the true facts of the case are slowly coming out and people are getting the accurate picture, as opposed to the initial reports that contained significant inaccuracies. But I wonder how many people are still paying attention or are willing to alter their initial knee-jerk reaction to what they heard on the news.

        Becky

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hey Becky,

        I’m not entirely sure how the State of Kentucky can resolve the issue. However, I do know that in the State of Florida, agents for government officials sign documents all the time. For example, Assistant State’s Attorneys (they’re called Assistant District Attorneys and other titles in other states) will sign documents “for” the actual elected State’s Attorney. If Kentucky does similar things, then there shouldn’t be an issue.

        From what I’m hearing right now, there seems to be some kind of compromise that the deputy clerks can still issue marriage licenses without Ms. Davis having to put her name on anything. But, because it seems that these news reports involve repeated information, anyone’s guess is as good as anyone else’s.

        Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        “The issue wasn’t that Ms. Davis wanted to prevent the others in her office from doing their work.”

        This may just be a matter of semantics, but I believe that the judge cited Kim Davis for contempt of court because something was happening in the Rowan County clerk’s office that was interfering with the rights of couples to obtain marriage licenses. Something was happening here, whatever we call it. I assume that the judge, a George Bush appointee, did note cite Kim Davis for contempt on a whim. Something was going on that was interfering with couples’ rights. I don’t know what you call it, but something wasn’t working here. Yes, Kim Davis has rights, but others have rights, too.

        Now I believe that the judge has concluded that as long as the clerk’s office can operate in such as that Davis doesn’t interfere with the rights of others, then all is well. If her failure to do her job doesn’t interfere in any way, shape of form with any legally-entitled applicant’s ability to get their wedding licenses in the county in question, then she can sit in the corner and assume an authority that she does not possess. She can judge away. So, don’t interfere with the rights of others, and it’s cool, she can be released. Good. The Great Persecution has ended. Whew!

        I do wonder where this is going. Could Catholic clerks refuse to process licenses if one or both individuals applying for a license have been divorced? Could fundamentalist clerk of all stripes refuse to process the licenses for interfaith couples? Could a racist clerk decide to not sign a license because he believes interracial marriages are immoral? As I understand it, all of the folks would have to be accommodated, just like Kim Davis. Could get tedious.

        Davis may be legally entitled to retain her job, but why anyone would want someone in a given job when that person won’t do the job beyond me. You know, if I’m being paid to do a job, and for whatever reason, I declare that I can’t do that job, then I would hope that I would at least consider taking a pay cut. I hope that I consider finding another job as well. I think that might be the ethical thing to do here.

        Like

      • David says:

        Meant to reply here, but accidentally put it at the bottom.

        Like

      • David says:

        Don’t know why this isn’t working, but I give it one more try. I meant to reply here, but accidentally put it at the bottom.

        Like

      • madblog says:

        Exactly. Remember she was imposed upon by the new federal ruling when they basically changed the terms of her job description and expected her to comply. She found, it seems, that she could not do so in good conscience.

        This left her with three options. The first was to comply. The second was to resign, leaving the position for someone who would not find the new job description a problem for his/her conscience. Or she could do as you have described and suffer the consequences.

        Note that there was no scenario where she could perform her job and live with her conscience or honor her objective standard of right. This is the crux of the issue. We may all find one day that the ever-growing state demands that we do something, or omit something, which we find we cannot do.

        There was no danger to the secular nation here. No one here is asserting one, not even close.
        People have been conscientiously objecting to all sorts of things forever. She is a civil disobedient and the consequences are part of the deal.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Mad

        If we work in the public sector, and I have done, then we are there to carry out our duties as required. Actually that applies to any job really. That’s why we get paid. Unless there is a clause that exempts people for personal beliefs, we have to lump it. Or find another job that is less well paid but suits our ethics.

        I am sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to dole out marriage licences for $80,000 a year.

        Sure there is no danger to the secular nation. But, it should be remembered that religion does not take precedence over the law. Davis is in contempt of the law just like many other criminals. Whether it is a matter of conscience or not is irrelevant.

        I do admire people who stand up for their principles and their conscience. Although, not in this instance because she is denying other people their legal rights and putting her own egocentric rights first.

        Like

      • madblog says:

        I am agreeing with you and you with me. I think I just said all of that. She took a stand and the attached consequence is trouble. No one is saying the consequences shouldn’t follow.
        I wonder how you would react if your job in the public sector suddenly revised its description and required you to do something which you found morally impossible.

        Religion does not take precedence over the law. Neither should the law, or the state, take precedence over an individual’s conscience.
        Would her critics be so relentless and savage if she took the same stand, but on non-religious grounds? Does it matter what influence informs a person’s conscientious objections? You bet it does.

        And I wonder how all the critics of Ms. Davis would respond if she were taking a stand against her employers which they found attractive.

        Like

      • You make a valid point about the critics and the topic. Right now, it’s fairly obvious that Christianity + SSM= big publicity. Add to that Ms Davis’ multiple divorces, other Christians talking about our sister in Christ being a martyr, and it’s a walking PR disaster for Christianity although it may not feel like that from the Christian side.

        In my UK working life, I spent most of it in the public sector. I preferred a job that contributed towards society rather than shareholders. One that I felt at least did something useful. Lucky the person who finds a job they can do where they 100% happy with everything they do. Given that it was public sector I accepted there may be aspects I didn’t agree with, but that’s what I signed up to do, whether it was justifying nuclear power, hospital closures, or the inevitable (lack of) government funding. I never lied, and in some cases, certainly working in cancer services, I think what I did genuinely produced improvements. I’ve certainly argued about how to do something, but never anything as black and white as patently refusing to do something that was a legal requirement. Different environments, different people, different priorities.

        Liked by 1 person

      • madblog says:

        I defer to your experience here. I don’t know what I might have done in her shoes, and I don’t know if she reacted perfectly. I’ve never had a job in the public sector.

        But I do think there is room for equivocation when all we have is a brand new SC opinion which has not yet been enacted into law by the various jurisdictions. There was real standing on her side: our first amendment, her state law still on the books, her electors’ wishes, even though she cited religious grounds for her actions.
        But she disobeyed a court order and was sent to prison. Some might say that court order was premature and heavy-handed. Or that it’s outright bullying in order to make her an example.

        The very same people who are celebrating her punishment for breaking a law they like admire civil disobedience heroes who broke laws they find immoral. It’s just not consistent.
        Christianity is facing one endless PR disaster no matter what we do because the prevailing cultural arbiters will interpret and spin that way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • brianbalke says:

        The quote from Jesus was a specific response to a question from the Pharisees regarding DIVORCE. It was not in the context of a sermon regarding the nature of marriage. Yes, read the Bible and understand. You’re fighting the wrong battle. Do you now expect all the county clerks to refuse to issue divorce papers?

        Secondly, Jesus says “render unto Caesar.” What that means is: honor the laws of the nation while demonstrating the virtues of faith. He did this to the point of death and then rose from the dead. Elsewhere in the Old Testament are many demonstrations of the power of faith to change the hearts of tyrants.

        If every county clerk of faith quit their job over same-sex marriage, then some attention might be paid. But the fact is that most county clerks – even those of faith – recognize that marriage is a union of two souls (which is how the “one body” outcome arises) and see that union in the hearts of the same-sex couples that come to them for a license.

        So, yes, if you side with this jailed clerk, let her know that if she quits you’ll support her financially until she finds another job. But otherwise, get out of the way of love.

        Liked by 3 people

      • lang3063 says:

        brianbalke:
        Jesus gives his hearers and readers more credit than you do. If he had to contextualize every statement to withstand 21st century American liberal interpretation he never would have made it through the Sermon on the Mount. He is stating God’s design for marriage as a given. The fact that he is answering a specific question is irrelevant.

        “Render unto Caesar” gets used as an ideological placeholder almost as much as “judge not.” Before we render unto Caesar we’d better make good and sure what’s really his. I think the Founders had some instructive things to say on this.

        “…most county clerks recognize… marriage is a union of two souls…” I have no idea what most county clerks recognize in this regard. Neither do you. Neither does anybody. Such sweeping presumption, often termed “stereotyping” almost always lands us in hot water.

        “…get out of the way of love…” or we’ll throw you in jail and make sure your reputation never sees the light of day again. Mighty strange idea of love. “And we know the flag of love is from above. And we can force you to believe. And we can force you to be free.”

        Like

      • brianbalke says:

        “More credit than you do?”
        The credit that Jesus gave his disciples was to honor their right and capacity for spiritual self-determination free from the hypocrisy of those that use religion and scripture to sustain unjust social structures. This was his argument with the Pharisees, engaged in many passages, with the one referenced being only a side-show.

        As for “most county clerks”: among tens of thousands, you offer one instance of disobedience. I think that the evidence speaks for itself.

        And finally: Yes, get out of the way of love. You are certainly not under threat of being thrown in jail, are you? And the clerk is not in jail for moral reasons – she’s in jail because she refuses to do her job, under court order. The is a civil matter, not a religious one.

        Liked by 1 person

    • madblog says:

      So we want to live in a country where jobs which may require moral judgments are necessarily all left to non-believers, non-religious people, or people who self-declare that their value judgments are not informed by any higher authority than the state?

      I think that’s what you just said.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Paul says:

        Each individual has a personal relationship with Christ. There may very well be strict Christians who would give the marriage licences – that is an administrative job with no decision making – she was not “allowing” SSM, she was doing paper work. Even so when we stand in judgement of others, we create all sorts of conflicts. If she had not stood in judgement of SSM , just refused to enter one herself (which is the way I interpret even the most orthodox Christian views) there would not have been a conflict. She judged – that caused the conflict and that is addressed by the Bible. As far as I am concerned the Bible is a personal scripture that should be stamped “For Internal Use Only”. To my mind we are not to use its rules to judge others – just to guide our own behaviour.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Paul says:

        In addition Madblog – we do not want religion and politics to intermix. I can guarantee you that if you promote religion modifying politics that you are opening up religion to be affected and modified by politics. Any relationship will end up being two way. That is going to lead to bad things – the very bad things that our ancestors fled in Europe.

        Like

    • David says:

      So we want to live in a country where county clerks decide if my marriage is moral or not? And if a county decides that my marriage is not moral, then I can’t get a secular, civil marriage license?

      Like

      • David says:

        Sorry, typo.

        And if a county clerk decides that my marriage is not moral, then I can’t get a secular, civil marriage license?

        Like

      • Paul says:

        The trick here David is that 1) no county clerk is making that decision – they are doing administrative work only and 2) No one ‘s marriage is being refused – this is not about the reduction of services but rather about the expansion of services – SSM is an addition to the previous hetero marriages – beyond what conservative Christians agree with. It is the Christians who are arguing that SSM should be denied and by using their definition of marriage. That is not the same definition as many others have. That’s like e saying I don’t like cheese so no-one else is allowed to eat cheese.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. ColorStorm says:

    Just one word:

    Awesome.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. john zande says:

    Does it change your opinion of her to know she’s been divorced FOUR times?

    What does the bible say about that?

    Like

    • No, John. God is a God of grace and mercy, which seems to escape so many who have not experienced it. Who among us can cast a single stone at any sinner? We deserve those stones to be cast at us just as much as the next person deserves them. The law of God actually shows us how we fall short, how we don’t measure up, how we can’t get it right no matter how hard we try. Personally I celebrate Kim Davis for her realization that the life she’d been leading was a mess, that she needed a Savior to help her do what she couldn’t do herself. The fact that she’s been a Christian for such a short time (four years, I’ve heard) and wants to hold to her faith even in the face of this kind of suffering, is a powerful statement showing how her life has been changed from the inside out.

      John, your question makes it seem like you think Christians don’t sin or that we don’t think we sin. If so, someone has deceived you. We Christians will tell you, if you care to listen, where we were or where we were headed before Christ gave us new life. Ms. Davis was not an example of someone with a Biblical marriage. How like God to take her and make her into a champion for it.

      Becky

      Liked by 2 people

      • john zande says:

        Hi Becky. I don’t for one moment think Christians don’t sin. 400 pastors and church leaders so far on the Ashley Martin list, and counting. It’s the selectivity of Christians (evangelicals, especially) i’m hitting at. Opposition to gay marriage comes from Leviticus. Leviticus also demands children be stoned to death for talking back to their parents. why is that “command” not followed?

        Also, has this women issued divorce licences, and if so, why? The bible is very, very, very clear on divorce. It’s wrong. Dead wrong.

        So, has she fought against divorce, or is this simply a matter of simple hating on gays?

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Hey john z

        It may be helpful for you to understand that the ‘law’ which you so love to quote, to try to trap believers in a theological dilemma…………..was given to Israel. Alone. Period. It is a schoolmaster however, from which all may learn.

        ‘Israel was not reckoned among the nations.’ God told you to stone nobody…………but He is certainly clear as to what sin is, and all men have no excuse.

        You have no case.

        Like

      • john zande says:

        Hi Colourstorm

        Can you point me to the passages where Jesus speaks about gays and bans them from having a loving union.

        Thanks.

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Why should He further explain the obvious john?

        ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.’

        Shall we also chastise Him for not forbidding a man to rob a bank?

        But lang here is clear enough.

        Liked by 1 person

      • john zande says:

        So, let me get this straight… You can’t actually show me any place where Jesus railed on gays. I see. Of course, Paul, had a few things to say, but do Christians follow Paul (the man who never even met Jesus), or Jesus (the son the Yhwh)?

        What Jesus did have quite a lot to say about was divorce, which is recorded in the gospels: Matthew 19:3-12, Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18.

        So, has this lady who is presently enjoying her “persecution” ever denied divorce certificates because it contravened Jesus’ direct commands?

        Has she?

        Is there any consistency here in her so-called steadfast adherence to biblical values?

        And Colourstorm, you’re dead wrong on Jesus freeing his followers from Mosaic law. It’s always so very convenient for evangelicals to wiggle out of this awkwardness, but you’re all denying Jesus specific commands:

        “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)

        And Jesus was quite specific:

        “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

        “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        You are funny john;

        Chastising people who understand the intent of law in scripture, while you believe not one word.

        Read Hebrews, Galatians.

        And if you believed and understood ‘it is finished………..’ you question list would disappear, and your challenges would cease.

        But I’m not interested in creating a traffic on langs site.

        Like

      • john zande says:

        Hebrews and Galatians are both Paul, Colourstorm. I asked you to show me where Jesus riled on gays.

        And, as I’m not sure what the answer is to this question, can you tell me if Davis has also refused to issue divorce licenses.

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Huge mistake for you there jz.

        Like any human could have penned those epistles apart from inspiration.

        The ‘many things that I have to say unto you,’ spoken by the Lord Himself………….were ahem, Hebrews and Galatians among ‘many other things,’ which by the way, the disciples had no capacity to understand AT that time………..

        Fortunately, they would later.

        Divorce? Yeah, a common and sad occurrence between men and women. Divorce magnifies the truth of marriage, but once more, irrelevant here.

        Like

      • john zande says:

        Two points:

        1. I asked you to show me where Jesus riled against gays. You have failed to do so.

        2. Divorce is most certainly relevant. Davis claims she’s standing up for “biblical values.” Now, while Jesus made no mention whatsoever about gays, he did have a lot to say about divorce.

        Has Davis, yes or no, refused to issue divorce licenses?

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        john-

        Once more you are missing the point. You are trying to mix oil and water.

        No can do. And I tried to show you that the Lord’s words on marriage are enough. Use you God given brain.

        Like

      • john zande says:

        Has Davis, yes or no, refused to issue divorce licenses?

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        For the last time, it is irrelevant.

        Like

      • john zande says:

        I’m sorry, Colourstorm, but it is highly relevant. This is a matter of consistency regarding marriage, so the question stands: Has Davis, yes or no, refused to issue divorce licenses?

        The question strikes to the heart of her character, and the bible is very, very clear on matters of divorce. Is she consistent in her alleged devotion to what she calls “biblical values,” or is this simply a matter of hating gays?

        So, Has Davis, yes or no, refused to issue divorce licenses?

        If the answer is no, then we can safely conclude her actions are not based on biblical-conscientiousness, rather hate. The question then becomes, why are you supporting a hate-filled person?

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        You are feeding a false narrative jz.

        You would like to imagine that defending God’s clearly defined covenant of marriage is ‘hate filled.’

        Of course we all fall short, but this does not change God’s ideal.

        I’m done here, and the ruling on the field stands. Marriage: male and female.

        Liked by 1 person

      • john zande says:

        Nice spin there, Colourstorm, but I’m afraid the narrative is about as robust as it comes. If Davis believes she’s defending “biblical values” then does she also refuse to issue divorce certificates, which would, of course, break this clear biblical command:

        Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. (Mark 10:9)

        So, Colourstorm, is her behaviour consistent? Does Davis refuse to issue divorce certificates, yes, or no?

        Is David actually defending biblical values?

        If her behaviour is not consistent in all matters concerning marriage then we must look to what actually motivates her actions… Because its evidently not defending “biblical values.”

        Like

      • Hey, John, glad you realize that Christians are not walking around as if we have arrived at some holy state that makes us above everyone else. I guess the only difference is that we think sin is a serious problem, one we’re not able to handle on our own—either the consequences for it or the grip it has on us.

        I know it’s easy to think we’re playing by two different sets of rules. In some ways we are. Christians believe we’ve entered into a relationship with God because Jesus dealt with our sin. What that does for me, in part, is cause me to change my priorities—not something that ever gets done perfectly, but something I want now, when before I didn’t want anything but my own way.

        I don’t expect people with a different set of priorities to adopt mine. I know some Christians sound as if they do, but there are some moral laws that God put in place long before Christianity came into being, and it’s these that we often talk about. One was His first command to the first human He created: “Be fruitful and multiply” (I’d think more people would notice, this means He told him, Have sex and lots of it!)

        Later God describes the ways in which “the land” was defiled: by those practicing incest and bestiality and homosexuality, along with idol worship and the like. But sexual sins are at the core of God’s law because they violate that first command, given to humankind, not to one nation.

        But you’re troubled because you think Christians pick and choose which laws we want to enforce. Ironic because I said the same thing about the federal government! 😉 The Bible, however, records the laws God wanted the nation He would rule to obey. He spelled out the consequences He wanted them to follow as well.

        In reality, Israel was woeful in their obedience. I don’t know if they ever celebrated a Jubilee (a brilliant plan to keep wealth from accumulating in the hands of a few), and I know Eli, one high priest, didn’t stone his disobedient sons. I know King David committed adultery and didn’t put to death his son who murdered his half brother. In other words, the King who ushered in the “Golden Era” of a unified Israel couldn’t get his own life and family in line with God’s law. It’s apparent from reading the Old Testament that Israel only drifted further from God. Yes, they had revivals, but then a generation later they returned to their disobedience.

        Long answer, I know. But the point is, Christians aren’t pretending that we can do better than Israel. What’s more, we’re not saying we have to live by the law. Rather, we’re saying the Law reveals God’s heart. He’s for the poor, the orphan, the widow, the stranger. And He abhors immorality. In the end He will judge according to His holy standard.

        The best we can do is warn, encourage, and live according to God’s standard, to the best of our ability. That’s what Kim Davis is doing.

        Becky

        Liked by 1 person

      • John, I wasn’t going to answer because I figured by this time you would have gotten the full story about Kim Davis. In fact, she was not issuing any marriage licenses, so that would include those of divorced people.

        But as to “divorce licenses,” to my knowledge those don’t exist. There are certificates of divorce and divorce decrees (though I suppose some state might call it a divorce license, though I didn’t find one in my search): “there is the divorce decree. This is the document prepared by the court, setting forth the terms and conditions of the divorce. It is signed by the judge and filed with the County Clerk of the County where the decree was issued.” Note, the County Clerk does not issue the decree. Her name is not on it.

        I don’t know if you saw this Washington Post article (my assumption is, you didn’t), but it clarifies a lot of the misinformation people are bandying about regarding religious freedom and the work place, both secular and governmental. It’s a little technical, so be warned: “When does your religion excuse you from doing part of your job?”
        http://wapo.st/1LPzBMB

        Becky

        Like

      • john zande says:

        Thanks Becky

        License, certificate, decree… It’s all the same. The fact that Davis has been issuing these statements of divorce (at least for the last 4 years) proves she’s not at all interested in actual biblical matters concerning marriage. What that leaves us with here to explain her behaviour is a simple matter of hatred for gays.

        Like

      • John, I agree—what a state chooses to call it, isn’t important. But you apparently missed the important part: it’s not the job of the County Clerk to issue anything involving divorce. “Note, the County Clerk does not issue the decree. Her name is not on it.” It’s the judge who issues it and signs it and files it with the Clerk.

        You can think Kim Davis hates gays if you want, but the facts of this case simply don’t support that conclusion.

        Becky

        Like

  8. madblog says:

    Reblogged this on Messages from the Mythical and commented:
    I guess we want to leave all value and moral judgments in the public sphere to people who self-declare that they honor no higher authority than the state?

    Like

  9. madblog says:

    Maybe Rosa Parks should just stopped riding buses. Maybe Ghandi should have just left India. I’m not knowledgeable enough about the case to talk about whether this clerk is doing something as noble as they, but from the perspective of the gov’t/judicial authority which put her in jail, it’s the same.

    Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      Kim Davis isn’t Rosa Parks, and she isn’t Ghandi.

      In this country, county clerks do not get to decide whose marriage is moral and whose marriage is not moral. It’s really that simple.

      Liked by 1 person

      • madblog says:

        Thanks for not addressing my point.

        No. They get to abstain from participating in a lawless law and legitimizing a square circle, and then they get to suffer the consequences. That’s how it works.

        Like

      • David, Kim Davis didn’t decide. She understands that homosexual unions break God’s moral standard. It’s not like she’s invented this. She wasn’t saying, today I’ll deny blondes from getting a license. And actually, in one article I read, the person said she wasn’t denying some and accepting others. The article said she was not giving out any marriage licenses. It has to do with Kentucky law. Much more complex than what the media would have us know.

        Becky

        Liked by 2 people

      • David says:

        “A lawless law.”

        Ah, so now we each get to decide which laws are lawless laws? You’ve got your law laws and your lawless laws, and it’s up to each of us to decide which is which. Well, that’s going to come in handy for me one day.

        County clerks don’t get to decide who gets civil, secular marriage licenses on the basis of their own personal religious. beliefs. They never have. It’s a law law.

        Like

      • David says:

        “Kim Davis didn’t decide.”

        Yes, she did decide. I assume that until recently, she was performing her duties as a clerk and issuing marriage licenses, yes? So what changed? She change the way in which she did her job because she believed that some of the marriages that were to be licensed were immoral. She made a decision about who gets marriage licenses based on her personal religious beliefs. Clerks working for a civil, secular government do not have this authority.

        “The article said she was not giving out any marriage licenses.”

        Was it a part of her job to give out marriage licenses? If so, and if she wasn’t giving out any licenses, then she wasn’t doing her job at all. I don’t think this is helps her case.

        Like

      • David says:

        “She understands that homosexual unions break God’s moral standard.”

        The marriage licenses in question were for civil, secular marriages. That means that it’s up to civil, secular governments to decide who gets the licenses.

        Like

      • David, I encourage you to read the article—it says far more than I can in a blog comment.

        When i said Kim Davis didn’t decide, I was refuting your implied idea that she was acting on her own. In truth, she was acting according to the Bible and according to Kentucky law (which the article explains—here’s the link: http://adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2015/09/03/welcome-to-chaos-kentucky-public-servants-on-different-sides-of-history )

        Becky

        Like

      • David says:

        “In truth, she was acting according to the Bible and according to Kentucky law,”

        If she’s acting according to the Bible, it’s her choice to believe this. Believing the Bible is an action that one chooses to take. In any event, it’s not relevant to the question of her obligations as a secular government employee. If it’s her job to file legally valid marriage licenses, then that’s her job.

        If she’s acting according to Kentucky law, then she’ll win in court. So, let’s wait to see how that goes before we decide that she’s according to KY law. Th courts will let us know who is right here.

        Like

  10. lang3063 says:

    Wow. I should have this kind of luck when I go fishing. I would just point out that the point of the post is specific and limited in scope. It’s an issue of family dynamics. There are loads of opportunities to take up positions on the politics of who should do what, what kind of people do x, y or z etc all over the net. I hope you’ll understand if I confine my responses to the topic at hand.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. john zande says:

    Persecution?

    Here are the laws in seven US states that forbid atheists from holding public office

    Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
    No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

    Maryland, Article 37:
    That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

    Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
    No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

    North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
    The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

    South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
    No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

    Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
    No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

    Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
    No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
    So, who is really being discriminated against?

    So, you really want to talk about state-sanctioned “persecution”?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Reblogged this on partneringwitheagles and commented:
    Link courtesy of insanitybytes22.

    Like

  13. Pingback: “THE LAW” VERSUS A CLEAR CONSCIENCE — reblogging Your Sister is in Jail | Citizen Tom

  14. Andrew says:

    State is the bully.

    Like

  15. xPraetorius says:

    Reblogged this on The Praetorian Writers Group and commented:
    In addition to the below, read the rest. Breathtaking clarity of thought, cutting through the intellectual and moral clutter that is today’s all-accepting society. All-accepting, that is, except for all the old, solid, well-known truths:

    Spare the twisted rationale about oaths requiring us to violate conscience. Your prosperous, secure, rights affirming country was founded by people who ran screaming from Europe so they could obey God and conscience without incurring the wrath of the state. Do not attempt to fall back on subtlety and “nuance,” the rebel’s code word for “actually, we can do whatever the hell we want.” “Nuance” got us slavery supported by Bible-ignorant church people. Moral clarity and fidelity to God’s word got us emancipation and blood-soaked abolition.

    Sides. They’re real and they matter. Choose you this day whom you will serve. When Jesus Christ, who you confess as Lord over your life confirms his Father’s ancient definition of marriage…

    Do yourself a big service and read the rest, then do yourself the most important service and think honestly about it.

    — xPraetorius

    Liked by 1 person

  16. lang3063 says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Kentucky
    If you doubt that Kim Davis has been singled out to be to be a convenient example, as of September 3, 2015 there are 2 counties in Kentucky refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples with a 3rd not saying if they will or not. Wonder what’s going on in other states? Where’s all the coverage, hmmm?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Pingback: Notes: How Kim Davis Broke the Law | Amusing Nonsense

  18. David says:

    “Apparently Judge Bunning did offer to get rid of the contempt order if she promised not to interfere with her deputies performing their jobs. She couldn’t promise that.”

    This appears to be the key to the whole matter. If Davis’ personal judgement of the morality of a pending wedding prevents the couple from obtaining a licenses, then there’s a problem. Clerks do not have the authority to deny licenses on the basis of the morals of the clerk. Clerks do not have the power to interfere with the rights of others on the basis of the clerk’s personal beliefs. They’ve never had this power. Making moral judgements is not in the job description.

    However, if Davis’ failure to do her job does not interfere in any way with the issuing of licenses to any couple legally entitled to the licenses, and as long as she doesn’t issue any licenses herself, then her beliefs do not interfere with the rights of others. If it’s just as easy to get a license when Davis doesn’t do her job as it is when Davis does do her job, then it doesn’t matter if she wants to sit in a corner and judge others. She can judge away. Now, I do hope that she’s willing to take a pay cut when she fails to do her job, but I guess that’s a matter her personal moral standards.

    So, if Davis says that she won’t interfere with the rights of others, if her failure to do her job doesn’t interfere in any way, shape of form with any legally-entitled applicant’s ability to get their wedding licenses in the county in question, then perhaps this matter can be resolved.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s