Why Does Tom Brady Prevail but not Kim Davis?

I have a few questions about the situation in Kentucky.

If Tom Brady would have received a 4-game suspension for his cheating, why can’t Kim Davis merely be suspended or fired? Joe Carter is the only one that has tried to answer this one (as far as I can see):

Because Davis is an elected official, she can only be removed from office by impeachment. That would require the Kentucky House of Representatives to charge her with an impeachable offense and the Senate would then try her. Impeachment is unlikely since relatively few citizens in Kentucky support same-sex marriage.

A poll taken in August found that 38 percent of the state’s residents said county clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses should be removed from office, 36 percent said clerks should be allowed to refuse, and 16 percent said the power to issue marriage licenses should be transferred to a state agency.

So because the legislature won’t act — how about the executive, we have three branches of government, right? — she goes to jail? Seems like something that would harsh Ms. Davis’ buzz.

Is the judge in this case, David L. Bunning, the son of Kentucky’s U.S. Senator, Jim Bunning, one of my boyhood heroes and who pitched a perfect game against the Mets on Father’s Day, 1964? Doh!

A lot of Christians are commenting on Ms. Davis’ situation. Since she is a new believer, why don’t these people talk directly to Ms. Davis and give her seasoned counsel about the nature of a Christian’s duty rather than using her to make a point in the culture wars?

Might the people who see this situation as a frightening infringement of religious freedom also recognize that Ms. Davis is still free (even if compelled to issue the licenses) to practice her faith? The restrictions only apply to her work, not to her worship. And Mark Silk (thanks for the correction) invokes President Kennedy it seems to me in a fitting way:

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

Last and possibly least, why does Ms. Davis suffer while corporate America flourishes and is now going to run the University of Iowa?

Come November, the University of Iowa will have a businessman with little experience in academe at its helm — and many faculty members and others in Iowa City aren’t happy about it.

The Iowa Board of Regents on Thursday unanimously appointed former IBM senior vice president Bruce Harreld as Iowa’s next president, despite outspoken criticism of Harreld as lacking the necessary qualifications to lead a university.

Harreld was one of four publicly announced finalists for the position and the only one without experience in higher education administration. He is a consultant who formerly worked as an executive at IBM, Kraft General Foods and Boston Market Company restaurants. His higher education experience is limited to eight years as an adjunct business professor at Harvard University and Northwestern University.

No peace, no justice, and the Patriots cheat and lie. (They besmirch the good name of the true patriots.)

Advertisements

243 thoughts on “Why Does Tom Brady Prevail but not Kim Davis?

  1. I appreciate the shout-out, but it’s Paul’s Epistle to the Romans that you’ve cited, not JFK’s speech to the Houston ministers.

    Like

  2. If Trump can run the country Mr. Harreld can run the U of Iowa. I can’t fathom how he got through the lib gauntlet unless he’s gay.

    Like

  3. Ms. Davis? It’s not a sin for her to issue the license so she should have done her job.

    Next issue, pronto. Bring it on, I’m jacked up!

    Like

  4. Sometimes work causes your conscience to be harshed, and badly.

    But I still admire her convictions, literally.

    And good to see safeguards in place for appeal, even over the NFL (yay!!!)

    Like

  5. If the Iowa followed the same procedure for hiring their president that we did, then the faculty weren’t privy to the candidates – the search firm and trustees made the choice.

    Like

  6. The Brady overbite. But, yea for U of Iowa. Most of the University administrators I’ve met couldn’t manage a lunch line. But they don’t like to draft teacher aids and post grads into their private ventures, allegedly.

    Like

  7. Ms. Davis might be thinking that fighting the right wing culture war is that same as being a Christian a/k/a the broad evangelical version of worldview. And how many know the difference these days? So, yeah, too bad she didn’t get better counsel.

    Like

  8. So this was approvingly cited “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” apparently to criticize Davis’ actions. So we get Darryl’s “The restrictions only apply to her work, not to her worship.” and MG’s “It’s not a sin for her to issue the license so she should have done her job.”

    So a few questions.
    If it’s not a sin for her to issue the license and she should have done her job, she was sinning by her disobedience and not doing her job correct?
    The governing authorities have legalized abortion. So can a Christian doctor or nurse perform abortions that they disagree with and still be in good standing at their church, or would they be counseled by those here that performing such work is sinful?
    During Jim Crow, if Davis issued a marriage certificate to an interracial couple in defiance of the laws, would she similarly be criticized for not obeying the authorities and not doing her job?

    Like

  9. So – just to be difficult – Would this be anything like the pre-Constantinian Christian soldier being free to kill Christians as part of his day job?

    Like

  10. Wow, guys, doing an abortion and killing Christians? Think on two things: gravity and causation.

    If an IRS official believes the rate of taxation to be higher than is permitted under the 8th commandment, is he free to rebel in doing his job to collect taxes?

    Like

  11. MG,

    “gravity and causation.”

    Agreed – I think we both brought up the various distinctions moral theologians make in cooperation with evil in an earlier thread. My question would then be with your “It’s not a sin for her to issue the license so she should have done her job.” which seems rather absolute.
    So 3 questions – if Davis issued the license, would she have cooperated with evil to some degree, even if only remotely so? Secondly, if she did cooperate with evil in issuing the license, isn’t that sinful to some degree? If so, would you then say “Yes, it’s a sin for her to issue the license, but it is a graver or more culpable sin to not issue the license and disobey the authorities, so she should have done her job”?

    Like

  12. Kent, it might more admirable if she demonstrated at least some understanding of appearances–multiple divorces herself and she wants to make a point about definitions? True, arrest was overkill in the opposite point making direction, but maybe spiritual counsel to Davis would involve something about learning to temper convictions.

    CvD, your hypothetical only works if Davis wanted to marry another woman. Or are you really suggesting that processing a homosexual union as an agent of the state is the same as homosexual behavior? And, yes, issuing an illegitimate license is just as problematic as refusing to issue a legitimate one. Has Davis issued divorce certificates, the kind not sanctioned by the Bible, or in your case the RCC? Having had some herself, I have to believe so, in which case the point about selectivity is warranted. I haven’t heard much about her convictions in that direction, i.e. she’s been personally guilty of no-fault divorce simply by issuing one.

    Like

  13. CVD, I can’t flesh out my response but think of Joseph & the Pharaoh, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, and the Roman Centurion. Do you suppose all of their service was untainted? We’re all in the world – which decisions are pure as snow?

    Like

  14. Miles,

    Does she issue licenses to people who have been divorced without cause (highly likely)? Why do gays get the rod and divorcees get the green light? What about a Christian marrying a non-Christian, would she issue them license?

    I’m not saying Christians should necessarily issue marriage licenses to gays/divorcees, but she either issues them (on behalf of the government) to everybody the Government says can get married, or she should find a new vocation.

    Like

  15. Zrim,

    “CvD, so do you cooperate with evil when you pay your taxes which then fund plenty of immoral things?”

    Yes I do – it’s a fallen world – cooperation is inevitable to varying degrees. Davis’ taxes are helping to pay for the clerk who replaced her. Does that mean her cooperation with evil in paying taxes is on the same level as her cooperation if she had issued the license is on the same level as her cooperation if she officiated an ssm marriage ceremony or walked in a pride march?

    “CvD, your hypothetical only works if Davis wanted to marry another woman.”

    But the Christian abortionist doctor or nurse doesn’t really want to abort the baby – he opposes it and would rather not. But it’s legalized by the authorities and he’s licensed. So why wouldn’t he be commended for obeying the state’s laws that affect only his work, but don’t affect his worship? Why are Democrat politicians who personally disagree with abortion based on their faith but claim they can/would never impose that belief on others because of our laws villified?

    “Or are you really suggesting that processing a homosexual union as an agent of the state is the same as homosexual behavior?”

    No, I understand there’s differences in cooperation with evil, as well as differences in gravity of evil. I was merely examining the position of “government authorities legalized it so suck it up – Peter and Paul did” that seems to be promoted here as self-evident.

    “And, yes, issuing an illegitimate license is just as problematic as refusing to issue a legitimate one.”

    Okay, so it is sinful to disobey government authorities when they legalize sinful behavior (ssm, segregation/jim crow), but it is not sinful to disobey or circumvent them when they legalize certain other sinful behaviors (e.g. abortion).

    Like

  16. Zrim, people come to Jesus as adults with tons of external and laughable (if one is mean) baggage. Sometimes they are people only Jesus could love.

    Like

  17. May I counter by asking why a national corporation like Walmart allows Muslim check-out employees to refuse to sell bacon, ham, or alcohol to customers by opening another check-out for them? What makes it OK for Muslims, but not OK for “new Christians?” Seems to me like it should not be OK for all or any of the above.

    Like

  18. Muddy-Buddy, by commandment you mean one of the ten?

    Nate, I’m not sure. When a clerk issues a marriage license to a couple, do they always necessarily know each interested marital party’s previous marital status? I’m unsure… not being snarky. Is a clerk required to know the religious status of each interested party? Is being “unequally yoked” a moral issue for the Christian, or just a suggestion?

    The nature of two men walking into a clerk’s office wanting a marriage license is a lot more cut-an-dry than a two persons of the opposite sex walking in wanting the same. Her conscience was probably screaming at her, and I almost guarantee she did not set out to wage “culture wars.” But that’s, like, just my opinion, man.

    Like

  19. That’s a good way to do it, Miles.She violated the ___ commandment in her act/omission of _______. With explanation as needed.

    Like

  20. Muddy, just before I try (the operating word, here) to make a case, is the onus on me to prove it’s indeed sinful? I mean, I asked why it wasn’t, so…

    If it is, I’ll oblige. But just crossing my “t”s, and so on.

    Like

  21. CvD, your use of abortion doesn’t help much because doctors are simply free to perform them–they don’t work as agents of the state and as such compelled to do so like county clerks are to issue marriage licenses. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish by pointing to it, other than it’s the over worked analogy used by natalists who want to shoe horn in abortion at every opportunity (we get it, you think abortion is really super bad). But to have an uncompelled but direct hand in an elective abortion simply isn’t the same as issuing a marriage license the powers that be say you’re now obligated to issue as their proxy, which is why no Reformed church would discipline the latter but may have plenty to say about the former.

    …so it is sinful to disobey government authorities when they legalize sinful behavior (ssm, segregation/jim crow), but it is not sinful to disobey or circumvent them when they legalize certain other sinful behaviors (e.g. abortion).

    Segregation isn’t sinful. But the point is that when one vows to uphold the law of the land as an agent of the state one will at times be required to have a political hand in things one isn’t personally comfortable with. If one doesn’t like that then one should refrain from that sort of work instead of complaining about having his personal druthers indulged; to be a public servant means a lot of things, not least is the diminishment of self.

    Like

  22. Is a clerk required to know the religious status of each interested party? Is being “unequally yoked” a moral issue for the Christian, or just a suggestion?

    Miles, so don’t ask, don’t tell? But if it’s important enough to a Davis to go to jail over issuing a license to homosexuals then maybe she should get more serious about wanting to follow biblical law and ask questions of a man and a woman coming to her for a license. But is she now a pastor or just a county clerk?

    Any, yes, it is unlawful for a Christian to marry outside of faith.

    Like

  23. Zrim,

    Are you positing a difference between how men should behave to the state as employer vs private employers? Here’s what I glean:
    Christian abortionist doctor, nurse, pharmacist giving pills, etc – not the same deal because the professional is not compelled by the state to perform/assist abortions – he could quit that clinic if he disagrees with abortion and go into another field of medicine or another field entirely. And if he didn’t quit his job, he would be disciplined by his church.

    Christian county clerk giving ssm/anti-miscegenation licenses – compelled by the state to perform such – if she disagrees with it she can quit her job, otherwise she should suck it up and do it. Would not be disciplined by church if she sticks with job and performs those duties – actually she would probably be commended by your lights (“to be a public servant means a lot of things, not least is the diminishment of self.”)

    So – state compels you to reluctantly cooperate with evil as part of your job – do it or quit, but don’t whine or disobey. Either case, you’re good and no discipline from church.
    Private employer compels you to reluctantly cooperate with evil as part of your job – do it and be disciplined by church, or quit (or whine and disobey) and be commended.

    Is this your position?

    Like

  24. Miles,

    Actually marriage licenses do ask if they were previously married and reason that marriage ended. If she’s going to play the religious conscience card then sounds like some willful ignorance at play when it comes to divorcees. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the logical inconsistency.

    Like

  25. @ Muddy:

    Yes, exactly. She (would have) violated the 7th commandment by issuing a license saying “married” to two people who cannot be lawfully married.

    Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than of her own. — WCF 24.4

    Some kinds of marriages cannot be made lawful.

    That said, her only recourse is to resign.

    Like

  26. So if one isn’t w-w or otherwise Reformed then they have no right to be a Christian?

    Pull you heads out of your behinds???

    Like

  27. CvD, yes, with a quibble: I wouldn’t characterize Davis continuing as clerk and issuing licenses to homosexual couples as “cooperating with evil” anymore than you as a citizen paying taxes that are used for immoral purposes. I’d reserve that characterization for the abortionist.

    Like

  28. Jeff, she didn’t commit adultery. She didn’t cause two men to have sex with one another. Under the law of the land, she allowed two people to enter into legal entanglements. And then, she did not solicit them to do so.

    Surely “marriage” under the WCF is a comprehensive term including the totality of the relationship, including sexual relations.

    Then I take it you would file charges against a clerk who issues such a license, yes? Would you also do so against a judge who allows an unbiblical no-fault divorce pursuant to the laws of the land? But if your position is true maybe Christian can’t be judges either.

    Like

  29. Jeff Cagle
    Posted September 4, 2015 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than of her own. — WCF 24.4

    Some kinds of marriages cannot be made lawful.

    That said, her only recourse is to resign.

    Or resist. Matt Franck at National Review:

    If the community — including public officials — meekly acquiesces to the Supreme Court’s lawlessness, then the result will be far more harmful to the rule of law and our constitutional republic than is Davis’s lonely stand. On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court has used the sword of its unaccountable power to rewrite the Constitution and fundamentally disrupt constitutional processes. Notable examples include, as I’ve pointed out before, Dred Scott and Roe. And then, with the damage done, it has used the shield of the “rule of law” to ensure that its lawless acts are respected and enforced, without exception. The legitimacy of Davis’s protest is inseparable from the illegitimacy of the court opinion that made it necessary. And it is this very illegitimacy that means she should neither resign nor comply. Instead, she has chosen the proper response: resist.

    Now what’s interesting here is that Kim Davis is an elected official–a magistrate.

    For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willingness of kings… I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance (Institutes, IV.20.31).

    http://www.thetwocities.com/theology/historical-theology/the-reformation-and-civil-disobedience-guest-post/

    “Calvin is urging the magistrate to protect the liberties of the people from tyranny. A tyrannical government consists of rulers who think that all things are lawful to their own ends.”

    You’re an honest fellow, Jeff. I’d love to see an honest discussion of this point instead of the usual fog.

    Like

  30. “Why can’t Kim Davis merely be suspended or fired?”

    Oh please. Because ssm is the sacred cow and golden calf of the day; the cause du jour and the reason the earth goes around the sun.

    Frankly I have no problem with Mrs. Davis going to jail.
    As long as the 5 Supremes who passed Obergefel have already taken up habitation in the men’s wing.
    The reasoning for the same had just as much constitutional and legal basis as Mrs. Davis’s action, religion aside.

    But these things only go one way these days and the sexual egalitarian tools of Big Brother are living it up bigtime right now.
    (Joe Carter has another article looking into just how much real demand there was for ssm. Sure they’re real vocal, but only because the homophiles in the media really push the issue also.)

    Bottom line, Benito nailed it.

    Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

    Which means when the modern state takes it into its paws to redefine one of the institutions that preceded it and upon which it is built, much more is a bulwark and alternative sphere of authority to the state, Leviathan doesn’t have anybody’s best interests in mine other than its own, whatever the homosexuals and their sympathizers think.

    Still as per every other revolution, those who help start it usually end up in front of a firing squad anyway. Not that they ever think of that when they’re jeering the likes of Mrs. Davis, but hey. The lesson of history is that nobody ever learns it.

    ciao

    Like

  31. Since she is a new believer, why don’t these people talk directly to Ms. Davis and give her seasoned counsel about the nature of a Christian’s duty rather than using her to make a point in the culture wars?

    If it’s what passes for seasoned counsel around here, maybe not.
    You know, as above as per CVD.

    Abortion is legal, do your job and shut up, Dr. Spock.
    Otherwise resign and get a job pumping out portable toilets.
    They’re always hiring.

    Like

  32. The answer to the question is simple. Brady didn’t defy a judge’s order, Davis did. As for the U of Iowa, we should note the following:

    1. College presidents are picked primarily for raising money

    2. Colleges are more businessfied today than at any time in history.

    Like

  33. Can a heretic (someone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity) be a martyr?

    We wanted a “martyr”; but not this one, it would appear. If only it was someone who could write like Al Mohler, speak like Russell Moore, and debate like Ryan Anderson; someone from a mainline church, someone of impressive appearance, someone who had a perfect marriage record (Mrs. Davis is on her fourth marriage, having only recently been converted to Christ). But we don’t get to choose our martyrs. God does that. As with salvation:

    “…not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence” (1 Cor. 1:26-29).

    And I don’t quote that to denigrate Mrs. Davis in any way; I have the highest admiration for her and esteem her far higher than myself. Rather, these verses describe the world’s perspective on God’s people; not God’s, or ours (I trust).

    Many Christians have been called to serve and suffer for Christ who have far from the best track records or gifts (just ask the Apostle Paul; or just ask me). It’s not for us to second-guess God’s chosen vessels, but to get behind the ones he has chosen to be His instruments to establish truth and righteousness or expose evil and hypocrisy.

    Like

  34. Martyr for what? Didn’t know opposing gay marriage was the historic gospel. Now, if they wanted to jail her because she professed that Jesus Christ is God and had been raised from the dead, now you’re cooking with grease.

    Like

  35. But puritans who don’t get precise about doctrinal subscription but instead base assurance on their works and/or happiness remind us that we don’t get to choose which people to water. Baptize the entire football team, and God will sort it out. A “theology of the cross” means that you don’t get to decide which Christian heroes you will support.

    David Murray—“She should just resign and get a job she can do with a good conscience,” say many. The basic principle behind this “solution” is that we walk (or run) away from every situation where human law contradicts God’s law. We fight to stop secular laws from becoming the law of the land (or the church); but once it’s done, we stop fighting; we either obey or we give up our callings. (Which won’t leave us many callings the way things are going).

    Thankfully, the Egyptians midwives refused to do that; Pharaoh’s daughter refused to do that; Daniel refused to do that; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to do that; the wise men from the East refused to do that; the Apostles refused to do that; many of the Reformers, the Covenanters, and the Puritans refused to do that; Bonhoeffer and many Christians in Nazi Germany refused to do that. Multitudes in North Korea and China are refusing to do that today. Pro-life medical professionals are refusing to do that every day of their lives.

    In some areas, Mrs Davis seems to have a better grasp of theology than many who claim to be theologians. However, it’s not exactly complicated. As the Apostles put it in words any child could understand, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). And in another place: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge” (Acts 4:19).

    Like the Apostles, who could also have simply moved on, Mrs Davis has refused to do the authorities’ dirty work for them. By refusing to resign, she is putting the moral responsibility for that action upon her accusers and judges. Many Christian men and women have done this through the years as they’ve stood before the unjust and unbiblical laws of the State, and sometimes the Church, and said, “We ought to obey God rather than man,” whatever the consequences may be.

    So, this morning, let’s pray for a Christian sister who is in prison indefinitely (until she changes her mind, the Judge said) for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses in the USA. (Whoever thought such a sentence would ever be written in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”? And let’s have a bit more of the latter, please). Pray that she would be kept from the “lions”, that she would hold firm and strong, and that she would know the presence of the Son of God beside her in this fiery trial. And may she inspire us all to have the courage of our convictions and stand wherever, whenever, and for whatever God has called us to fight.”

    End of Murray quotation, and I disagree. Back to the gospel. Or maybe, let’s first get to the gospel.

    http://headhearthand.org/blog/2015/09/04/we-dont-get-to-choose-our-martyrs/

    Like

  36. @ Muddy:

    Personal abstention is not sufficient.

    WLC 99:

    Q. 99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?

    7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.

    But more importantly, this is a question of truthfulness. Are the two lawfully married? The job would compel her to say Yes.

    Like

  37. Some Christians “act as if some vast conspiracy is brewing in America over the Christian faith, with naysayers organized against Christians. They feel like they live life on the cultural margins, so they take that as their identity–they count their marginalization as their righteousness. They are not looking to Jesus as their only righteousness, and so they act from prejudice, assuming that everyone hates them, and they act in a way that confirms this.” (Crucifying Morality, p 105, R. W. Glenn)

    I will not forget Rutherford’s fight against liberty of conscience. He was only trying to use the government to protect the people from “sectarian” ideas. How different is that from what the Supreme Court has done with marriage laws? http://files1.wts.edu/uploads/images/files/71.2%20WTJ%20FA09.pdf

    Like

  38. Hopefully Davis inspired a department where all 12 of them take a stand. Good things can happen, the consent of the governed is required.

    Like

  39. Jeff, if you are going to employ WLC 99 with any rigor, you will be going after more than the clerk handing out marriage licenses. That degree of culpability would apply to judges, politicians, and many soldiers; I think it’s tending toward the anabaptistic notion that Christians can’t serve in such roles at all.

    I wonder if we are bewitched by the word “marriage.” What if it was the same thing with “civil union” on the paper? Same thing or different?

    There was time when marriage was the initiation of living together, starting to have sex, moving toward having a family, etc. For some – not as many as we would wish – that is still the case. But as those elements started to come before marriage or entirely without marriage it became clearer what the state licensing system is: the initiation of legal advantages and entanglements. Surely we should not reduce the concept of marriage to legal advantages and entanglements, but that is what’s happening when a clerk is accused of sin for handing out a marriage certificate.

    In our scenario, here’s what has already happened:
    – the same sex couple is living together
    – the same sex couple is having sexual relations
    – the same sex couple has made long term plans to be together.

    These are all happening whether the certificate of legal entanglement is handed out or not. I don’t see much causation between the clerk handing out the certificate and whatever sin might be involved.

    Maybe we need to recover a more robust idea of marriage, not reducing it to a certificate the state passes out. All the clerk is “causing” is access to things like joint filing, inheritance of possessions, benefits entitlement, and the need to divorce.

    IMO the best argument on your side is centered on the 5th commandment insofar as it relates to duties of the magistrate.

    There may be upcoming situations that require refusal & quitting but this doesn’t quite get there.

    Like

  40. natural law vs. r2k in a nutshell

    Robert P. George ‏@McCormickProf
    There really ARE two kinds of people in the world: those who will go to jail rather than do what’s wrong and those who will send them there.

    16 retweets 14 favorites
    Reply Retweeted 16 Favorite 14

    Like

  41. “But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow.

    And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God.”–You-know who

    Like

  42. Good article, Jack. This caught my attention:

    Davis’s objection, it appears (see pp. 40 and 133 of her stay application and attachments), is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.
    ——
    No objection per se, but objecting to her name being on it. Interesting twist.

    Like

  43. @ Muddy:

    It is precisely the word “marriage.” Civil unions would pose no obstacle.

    The point is not, it must ever be stressed, that Davis would be condoning sin. It is that she would be declaring them lawfully married when they cannot be.

    So, resign.

    Like

  44. Jack and MG, it is an interesting twist. But questions still remain for Davis. If afforded, would she want her name stricken from those licenses for the unequally yoked, those previously no fault divorced, those who practiced fornication without showing true repentance prior to seeking an honest marriage? Her grounds are that homosexual marriage isn’t biblical. Fine, but these instances are also unbiblical. Can she be so selective in her reasoning?

    Like

  45. Any Christian who doesn’t understand the difference between a messed up heterosexual marriage and a fake homosexual marriage needs to report to my office and to 7th grade remedial biology class immediately.

    Clueless.

    Like

  46. Zrim
    Posted September 5, 2015 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
    Jack and MG, it is an interesting twist. But questions still remain for Davis. If afforded, would she want her name stricken from those licenses for the unequally yoked, those previously no fault divorced, those who practiced fornication without showing true repentance prior to seeking an honest marriage? Her grounds are that homosexual marriage isn’t biblical. Fine, but these instances are also unbiblical. Can she be so selective in her reasoning?

    Actually, she refused to issue licences to everybody.

    Like

  47. Interesting pieces of her pleading:

    Davis is a professing Apostolic Christian who attends church worship service multiple times per week, attends weekly Bible study, and leads a weekly Bible study with women at a local jail.

    On June 27, 2015, following the Obergefell decision, Davis discontinued issuing any marriage licenses. VC, ¶ 29. This was not a “spur-of-the-moment decision” reached by Davis; to the contrary, it was something that, after exhorting legislators to provide conscience protection for county clerks, she “had prayed and fasted over weekly” in the weeks and months leading up to the Obergefell decision. VC, ¶ 29

    Davis suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses in Rowan County. VC, ¶ 29. She instructed all deputy clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses because licenses are issued on her authority, and because every license requires her name to appear on the license as the authorizing person.

    Like

  48. Jeff, don’t you need to distinguish civil law from divine law? If you asked, is someone legally innocent, you would say in many cases yes even though before God we’re all toast (outside Christ).

    Like

  49. vd, t, looks like your buddy John Fea is not on your side:

    I don’t think Davis has much legal ground to stand on here. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will eventually need to hear a case that pits same-sex marriage against religious liberty, but I don’t think this will be that case. Davis works for the state and thus must enforce the laws of the state. She does not work for a church or a religious organization.

    As a historian, the Davis case leads me back to a question I have been thinking about for a long time: Is America a Christian Nation? Even if one argues that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, it is very hard to make the case that it still is a Christian nation today. The United States does not privilege Christianity and thus (in the wake of Obergfell) does not privilege traditional Christian views on marriage. In this sense, the United States is a secular nation. Many of my fellow evangelicals will cringe when I use that term. By secular I do not mean that religion cannot contribute to the public good or should in some way be eradicated from American life. I am simply saying that religion is not the basis for the laws of the United States.

    Like

  50. Jack, this one has been receiving lots of likes. Thanks. The pertinent point (it seems to mmmmmmmmeeeeeEEEEEEEE):

    Davis’s objection, it appears (see pp. 40 and 133 of her stay application and attachments), is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with

    Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.

    Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide. It’s true that state law requires the County Clerk’s name on the marriage license and the marriage certificate. But the point of RFRAs, such as the Kentucky RFRA, is precisely to provide religious objectors with exemptions even from such generally applicable laws, so long as the exemptions don’t necessarily and materially undermine a compelling government interest.

    And allowing all marriage licenses and certificates — for opposite-sex marriages or same-sex ones — to include a deputy clerk’s name, or just the notation “Rowan County Clerk,” wouldn’t jeopardize any compelling government interest. To be sure, it would have to be clear that this modification is legally authorized, and doesn’t make the license and certificate invalid. But a court that grants Davis’s RFRA exemption request could easily issue an order that makes this clear.

    Like

  51. From the district court decision:
    _______________________
    Plaintiffs are two same-sex and two opposite-sex couples seeking to enjoin Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from enforcing her own marriage licensing policy. On June 26, 2015, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage, Davis announced that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office would no longer issue marriage licenses to any couples.

    [The following is a directive from the governor.]
    You can continue to have your own personal beliefs but, you’re also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at that point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, th[e]n obviously an honorable course to take is to resign and let someone else step in who feels that they can fulfill those duties. (Doc. # 29-11).

    [Back to the district court judge.]
    Davis is well aware of these directives. Nevertheless, she plans to implement her “no marriage licenses” policy for the remaining three and a half years of her term as Rowan County Clerk. (Doc. # 26 at 67)

    Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry.

    Illuminating to look at the certificate on page e-34
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Kentucky-marriage-15A250-application.pdf

    Like

  52. Yes, there should have been some discernment exercised before hitching the American Freedom wagon to Karen Davis. Four marriages, non-trinitarian, “apostolic,” refusing to give licenses to heteros, and her plan to do that for 3 1/2 years?

    Like

  53. I object that she’s making it difficult on me to make a judgement solely on the merits of her objections cuz, well, look at her. You know that woman is bat$#%! crazy. She’s dreamed(Zrim give me my props) her whole life of being in this moment.

    Like

  54. D. G. Hart
    Posted September 5, 2015 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, looks like your buddy John Fea is not on your side:

    “I don’t think Davis has much legal ground to stand on here.”

    You’re not hearing the argument, Dr. Hart. Of course the godless bastards will throw her in prison, and did. And it’s not about kneeling to the government.

    It’s about religious-based resistance, which your Calvinist religion practically invented. Plus as an elected official, she’s a magistrate. John Calvin:

    “But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow.

    And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God.”

    This is your golden moment, Dr. Calvinism: A History. Don’t blow it. Kim Davis is precisely the one to stand up for us all here. C’mon, dude. I’ll get your back.

    Like

  55. No martyrdom for the Oneness heretic.

    “It’s about religious-based resistance, which your Calvinist religion practically invented.”

    Just resisting false gospel of Rome, which your Roman Catholic religion still knowingly practices.

    Like

  56. vd, t, the issue, as you stated, was who put her in jail. You called it “my side.”

    Now your friend John Fea agrees. He’s on “my side.”

    You are an anti-dgh bigot.

    Like

  57. Erik, you really should get some help with your OL obsession and your petty grievance against Z. Neither is healthy and you come off as a stalker.

    Like

  58. D. G. Hart
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 7:21 am | Permalink
    vd, t, the issue, as you stated, was who put her in jail. You called it “my side.”

    Now your friend John Fea agrees. He’s on “my side.”

    You are an anti-dgh bigot.

    Yes, John Fea teaches at an Anabaptist school, hates the religious right and hearts Obama. You’d fit right in.

    And yes, you would arrest her yourself and throw her in the clink. You just do your job and don’t think about right or wrong. You just mindlessly obey the rules of the state, otherwise resign your position.

    You’d turn escaped slaves over to the authorities under the Fugitive Slave Act, Romans 13. You were just following orders. Two Kingdoms, hyah! Jesus is so proud of you.

    Like

  59. “But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow.

    And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God.”–You-know who

    Like

  60. How many leagues distant from godliness are those who serve men, who either for fear of punishment, or from hope of promotion, comply with the sinful commands of men, who will put their conscience under any yoke, and sail with any wind that blows profit. These are the ‘servants of men’; they have abjured their baptismal vow, and renounced the Lord who bought them.

    Like

  61. sean, I tweeted similar sentiments a day or so ago. The religious right is hitching their wagon to a crazy-woman, and a government worker to boot. Ron Swanson thinks this is ironic.

    Like

  62. D.G. – Thank you – but no question mark needed….

    What does a man get by sinfully enslaving himself? He gets a blot on his name, a curse on his estate, a hell in his conscience; no, even those that he basely stoops to will scorn and despise him. How the high priests kicked off Judas! ‘See thou to that’ (Matthew 27:4). That we may not be the servants of men, let us abandon fear and advance faith (Ester 8:17). Faith is a world conquering grace (I JOhn 5:4). It overcomes the world’s music and crucible; it steels a Christian with divine courage, and makes him stand immovable, like a rock in the midst of the sea.

    Like

  63. Funny, a lot of those who howled and teeth-nashed at Horton’s ‘why civil unions make sense’ are now wishing that it all would have ended with secular, state sanctioned, civil unions.

    Like

  64. Do we prize Christ above honor and riches? <= 🙂 Does the Pearl of Price lie nearest our heart. He who prizes Christ esteems the gleanings of Christ better than the world's vintage. He counts the worst things of Christ better than the best things of the world: 'esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt' (Hebrew 11:26). You will hear some say they have honorable thoughts of Christ, but they prize their land and estate above him. The young man in the Gospel preferred his bags of gold before Christ. Judas valued thirty pieces of silver above him. May it not be feared, if an hour of trial comes, that there are many who would rather renounce their baptism, and throw off Christ's rainments, than hazard the loss of their earthly possessions for him?

    Like

  65. Biohnson
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
    Funny, a lot of those who howled and teeth-nashed at Horton’s ‘why civil unions make sense’ are now wishing that it all would have ended with secular, state sanctioned, civil unions.

    Many were fine with civil unions. Leave “marriage” for real marriage, not the same-sex counterfeit. But that wasn’t good enough. the power of the state must be used to make us accept all sexuality as created equal.

    BTW, someone here should look up Kin Davis’s actual point. Dr. Hart doesn’t quite get it, although he’s quite happy to hand her over to the hangman.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/jailed-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-offers-remedy-sex/story?id=33532686

    Like

  66. So, Lee, you approve of Ms. Davis refusing to grant hetero marriage licenses the day after the SSM decision? Please tell us what right she had to deny them their licenses. And if her job – admitted by all – is to grant those licenses, why should she not be in contempt for refusing to issue those?

    Four of the eight original complainants were heteros she would not marry.

    Like

  67. The apostles rejoiced that they were graced so much as to be disgraced for Christ (Acts 5:41). They esteemed their fetters more precious than bracelets of gold. Do not let him who refuses to bear his cross say that he prizes Christ: ‘When persecution arises because of the word, by and by he is offended’ (Matthew 13:21).

    Like

  68. My reading of the marriage license form is that the clerk is certifying that the two can be legally married under the laws of Kentucky. Isn’t that different than giving moral approbation?

    Like

  69. For the sake of accuracy, the above-referenced Twitter account that looked like Ms. Davis’ turned out to be bogus.

    Like

  70. Some slight Christ now and say, ‘There is no beauty that we should desire him’ (Isaiah 53:2). There is a day coming shortly when Christ will as much slight them. He will set as light by them as they do by him. He will say, ‘I know you not’ (Luke 13:27). What a slighting word that will be, when men cry, ‘Lord Jesus, save us’, and he says, ‘I was offered to you but you would have none of me (Psalm 81:11); you scorned me, and now I will set light by you and your salvation. Depart from me, I do not know you.’ This is all that sinners get by rejecting the Lord of life. Christ will slight at the day of judgment those who have slighted him in the day of grace.

    Like

  71. lee
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 5:11 pm | Permalink
    The apostles rejoiced that they were graced so much as to be disgraced for Christ (Acts 5:41). They esteemed their fetters more precious than bracelets of gold. Do not let him who refuses to bear his cross say that he prizes Christ: ‘When persecution arises because of the word, by and by he is offended’ (Matthew 13:21).

    The question is not whether Kim Davis is on firm legal ground. She will lose. The question is whether she has a moral or religious duty to protest–resist–an immoral law. Unfortunately “radical” 2Kers, as well as many normal folk as well, can’t even conceive of standing up against the government for what’s right.

    BTW, she’s an elected “lesser magistrate.” According to Calvin and all Reformed resistance theory, she’s precisely the person to be standing up. I’m quite unimpressed with those here gathered being so willfully ignorant of the fact and hanging her out to dry.

    Like

  72. D.G – I have never heard of her……

    How far from being godly are those who scarcely ever shed a tear for sin! If they lose a near relation, they weep; but though they are in danger of losing God and their souls, they do not weep. How few know what it is to be in an agony for sin or what a broken heart means! Their eyes are not like the ‘fishpools in Heshbon’, bull of water (Song 7:4), but rather like the mountains of Gilboa, which had no dew upon them (2 Samuel 1:21). It was a greater plague for Pharaoh to have his heart turned into stone than to have his rivers turned into blood. Others, if they sometimes shed a tear, are still never the better. They go on in wickedness, and do not drown their sins in their tears.

    Like

  73. Memorable is the story of King Edward VI. On the day of his coronation, when they presented three swords before him, signifying to him that he was monarch of three kingdoms, the king said, ‘There is still one sword missing.’ On being asked what that was, he answered, ‘The Holy Bible, which is the “sword of the Spirit” and is to be preferred before these ensigns of royalty.’

    Like

  74. “Memorable is the story of King Edward VI.”
    What’s with the Yoda schtick? More seriously, do you have a source for this? As best as I can tell it originates in a 19th century tract. Curious that it doesn’t show up anywhere else for 300 years. Not saying it isn’t legit, but I would be interested to know the original source if you have it handy. The theonomist’s site were I found reference to this quote has an interesting take on how God’s moral law should be implemented in society. I wonder what those here who think we should enforce God’s moral law with the sword think about the further implications of this (does issuing a building permit to a mormon to build a temple to a false God fall into the same category as issuing a marriage license to a gay couple?).

    Regarding your other posts, I’m not sure I’m getting your point. A non-trinitarian heretic has made a name for herself by refusing to issue any marriage licenses. Are you saying it would be sinful to do so if she were a Christian? Would it have been sinful to resign her post if she were a Christian? (I understand that since she isn’t believer, then nothing she does is righteous because it cannot be done in faith.) Or do you have a larger point that believers who do not rally to her and make common cause with an unbeliever are thus sinning? Do you have an exegetical basis for your assertion that one must shed tears over their sin to be godly? Why isn’t it sufficient to repent of one’s sin in an orderly and sober fashion and rest in the confidence of Christ’s finished work on our behalf? In addition to shedding tears, are there any other works we need to get busy with to be made right with God? Or were you making some other point. Perhaps I’m too dense to get your point.

    Like

  75. TVD
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
    Biohnson
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
    Funny, a lot of those who howled and teeth-nashed at Horton’s ‘why civil unions make sense’ are now wishing that it all would have ended with secular, state sanctioned, civil unions.

    Many were fine with civil unions. Leave “marriage” for real marriage, not the same-sex counterfeit. But that wasn’t good enough. the power of the state must be used to make us accept all sexuality as created equal.

    BTW, someone here should look up Kin Davis’s actual point. Dr. Hart doesn’t quite get it, although he’s quite happy to hand her over to the hangman.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/jailed-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-offers-remedy-sex/story?id=33532686>>>>&gt;

    I think that most people were fine with civil unions. Did anyone check to find out what the simple fix Kim Davis asks for is? Seems quite reasonable to me.

    What difference does this case make to the radical 2K, Old Life participants? What is its relevance, since she is not a member of any Reformed church as far as we know? It is outside your jurisdiction.

    Like

  76. Who set Lee free from Facebook? And the pentecostal lady is still a nut job on a power trip, now buttressed in her self-delusion by the fantasy of being a martyr. As if a career bureaucrat needed any help on the power, self-righteous, self-delusion(that she does work) card.

    But just to give equal time to the gay-bashing sentiment, get them out of the electronics and TV dept! Yikes. They are cosmetics and shoes. MAC and Madden. They don’t know an LED from a vacuum tube. And what are they doing at Sears?!

    Like

  77. Of course the exaltation of Kim Davis is not her fault as much as those who have put her on a high place. And in doing so they have shown their essentially political – not Christian – bent, as they quickly pushed out the most advantageous narrative and still disregard all the messy parts of the narrative. Just like the bad guys do.

    Like

  78. Ariel, the relevance comes in when fellow Reformed join the general bandwagon in overreaction. Just this evening the intercessory prayer included some misguided notions that this signals the increased persecution of Christians in America. But to portray Davis’ treatment as persecution is to confuse the question of marriage with the gospel. Hetero marriage isn’t the gospel, and Davis still lives in one of the freest countries on earth where she can practice her faith completely unmolested. The suggestions of persecution and threatened religious liberty are asinine. Another problem is in how this demonstrates almost zero discernment as to the complications involved in being as agent of the state.

    And of all people, Reformed Prots should know better than to take the cues of really amounts to Anabaptist reasoning. While resignation is the most legit option for someone with Davis’ conscience, I’m not so sure it’s really Protestant to advise it. It seems actually more Anabaptist (which is what I think Wilson’s view tends toward, see below), i.e. with a conscience against killing one can’t be in law enforcement or military. Similarly, while resignation beats this ploy to have her religious liberty accommodated, I don’t see how it’s any different from advising a believer to refrain from being a judge (death penalty), a soldier, or a cop since to do so would be to cooperate in some form of evil. But it seems more Protestant to distinguish in such a way as to carry out legit vocational tasks without being personally guilty of what some of those tasks may entail.

    Interestingly, Davis adheres to a broadly evangelical sect which is largely anti-institutional. But somehow when it comes to this issue she’s all of a sudden interested in the finer legal points of an institution. She wants her name stricken from certain certificates. But by the same hyper-spiritual reasoning she uses in her newfound religion, does God really overlook the fact that she simply doesn’t have her name on a license she had a part in processing? Protestantism has a way of saying she can issue homosexual marriage licenses without being personally guilty of homosexuality (duh), but how does her anti-institutional religion make sense of her institutional sensibilities when it comes to her civil occupation?

    http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/in-which-i-paint-with-some-bright-yellows.html

    Some might ask what the good in that would be. Wouldn’t it just result in no Christians in such positions? Perhaps, but it would be far better to have godless results enforced by the godless than to insist that the godly do it for them. It would be far better to have the “no Christians in power results” when it was actually the case that no Christians were in power. I would rather have non-Christian clerks acting like non-Christian clerks than to have Christian clerks do it for them. I mean, right?

    Like

  79. This one’s for you, Webster:
    _______________
    5. Judge’s Mother Says ‘He Loves the Lord’

    Mary Bunning, the judge’s mother and senator’s wife, said her Catholic son is devoted to his faith.

    “He loves the Lord. He loves family. What else more can you expect of a young man?” she told the Cincinnati Inquirer.

    “David is an honest person,” Mary Bunning continued. “He doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court but has to obey the law.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-federal-judge-who-sent-the-kentucky-county-clerk-to-jail/

    Like

  80. vd, t, you’re trying way too hard, so hard that you stepped on another rake.

    Don’t give the bureaucrats our children.

    “she’s an elected ‘lesser magistrate'” so says you of Kim Davis.

    And I don’t want her, the bureaucrat, having my children.

    Like

  81. Muddy Gravel
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 10:04 pm | Permalink
    This one’s for you, Webster:
    _______________
    5. Judge’s Mother Says ‘He Loves the Lord’

    Mary Bunning, the judge’s mother and senator’s wife, said her Catholic son is devoted to his faith.

    “He loves the Lord. He loves family. What else more can you expect of a young man?” she told the Cincinnati Inquirer.

    “David is an honest person,” Mary Bunning continued. “He doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court but has to obey the law.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-federal-judge-who-sent-the-kentucky-county-clerk-to-jail/

    why are you disrespecting The Little Mermaid as “The Webster.” From you or other of Darryl’s henchmen, it’s no sign of affection.

    Why are you picking her out? Do you think it’s someone you can beat, like Darryl ignores the best points and nibbles at the weakest ones?

    “David is an honest person,” Mary Bunning continued. “He doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court but has to obey the law.”

    Just like they returned escaped slaves to their masters? You radical 2 kingdoms people attack everyone else but don’t have the balls to take on the tough questions. Man up.

    Despite being appointed by a Republican president, Bunning has had other rulings that have riled conservatives.

    In 2007, Bunning was part of a three-judge panel on a federal appeals court to overturn a Michigan ban on partial-birth abortion, determining the language of the law to be overly broad with the potential to outlaw other legal types of abortion.

    In 2003, Judge Bunning ordered the Boyd County Kentucky School District to allow the Gay-Straight Alliance, a student group, to meet on school grounds.

    Boyd County held training sessions on avoiding anti-gay harassment, and penalized students with unexcused absences for not showing up. When parents sued the school district, Bunning ruled in favor of the school district.

    You’d do the same thing, right?

    If you give the bureaucrats the children, you might as well give them everything else as well.-–J Gresham Machen

    Wake up, Darryl and the Eunuchs. It’s not too late.

    Like

  82. Muddy, never mind. Webster has a webbed brain as well. She already missed Jack’s link that you and I both noted. This was the relevant bit:

    Davis’s objection, it appears (see pp. 40 and 133 of her stay application and attachments), is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with

    Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.

    Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide. It’s true that state law requires the County Clerk’s name on the marriage license and the marriage certificate. But the point of RFRAs, such as the Kentucky RFRA, is precisely to provide religious objectors with exemptions even from such generally applicable laws, so long as the exemptions don’t necessarily and materially undermine a compelling government interest.

    And allowing all marriage licenses and certificates — for opposite-sex marriages or same-sex ones — to include a deputy clerk’s name, or just the notation “Rowan County Clerk,” wouldn’t jeopardize any compelling government interest. To be sure, it would have to be clear that this modification is legally authorized, and doesn’t make the license and certificate invalid. But a court that grants Davis’s RFRA exemption request could easily issue an order that makes this clear.

    Will Mermaid drop her rosary to come up for air?

    Like

  83. ,i>D. G. Hart
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, you’re trying way too hard, so hard that you stepped on another rake.

    Don’t give the bureaucrats our children.

    “she’s an elected ‘lesser magistrate’” so says you of Kim Davis.

    And I don’t want her, the bureaucrat, having my children.

    Finally, you come out of your cave. Find some balls, Butch, and cut the crap. She’s not the bureaucrat Machen was speaking of. These are, and you have nothing but your empty sneers for them.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-angry-parents-stand-up-to-school-board-over-lessons-on-gay-marriage-room-erupts/

    Like

  84. D. G. Hart
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
    Muddy, never mind. Webster has a webbed brain as well. She already missed Jack’s link that you and I both noted. This was the relevant bit:

    Davis’s objection, it appears (see pp. 40 and 133 of her stay application and attachments), is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with

    Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.

    Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide. It’s true that state law requires the County Clerk’s name on the marriage license and the marriage certificate. But the point of RFRAs, such as the Kentucky RFRA, is precisely to provide religious objectors with exemptions even from such generally applicable laws, so long as the exemptions don’t necessarily and materially undermine a compelling government interest.

    And allowing all marriage licenses and certificates — for opposite-sex marriages or same-sex ones — to include a deputy clerk’s name, or just the notation “Rowan County Clerk,” wouldn’t jeopardize any compelling government interest. To be sure, it would have to be clear that this modification is legally authorized, and doesn’t make the license and certificate invalid. But a court that grants Davis’s RFRA exemption request could easily issue an order that makes this clear.

    Will Mermaid drop her rosary to come up for air?

    Can’t even discuss religion or morality, just the law. Darryl and the Eunuchs.

    And a dirty shot about the rosary, Dr. Hart, and “the “Webster” insult too. Jesus is proud of you.

    Like

  85. I want to stay with the obvious, oneness pentecostal, with four marriages, is vying for Joan of Arc of christian hetero marriage/cuz ‘Merica.

    “If your head is spinning trying to piece all of that together, let me try to break it down for you. She was cheating on her first husband (committing adultery – which is punishable by stoning in the Bible) with the man who would eventually become her third husband; though her second husband ultimately ended up adopting the children who were the result of her adultery; she then later went on to marry her third husband who is the biological father of the twins conceived of her extramarital affair. Meanwhile, all three marriages ultimately went on to end in divorce.”

    And she married a fourth time.

    Yea, so, not christian, not biblical, anti-institutional, a lifetime of bad decisions and a chip on both shoulders. Hmmm, I’ma back up real slow from this one cuz she’s twitchy and a carrier, and catch the first train outta, ‘I need lithium and a valium chaser but I refuse to take either cuz I’m KJV only town.’

    Like

  86. D. G. Hart
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 10:31 pm | Permalink
    Muddy, really good catch on that one. That’s the communion whose call they are heeding.

    Another cheap Catholic bash, big talk. What would you have done differently, Darryl and the Eunuchs?

    Nothing.

    Like

  87. sean
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
    Tom, what was the homily about today? Did you get the wafer?

    Funny, Sean. Readers of Old Life ask me why if going to church is all that, why Darryl and His Eunuchs are still such complete assholes.

    Like

  88. So, that’s a no? And it’s our fault because we’re poor examples of the transformative power of the roman church. You just keep doing you, Tom.

    Like

  89. Did you guys have a bad day at church today? Did Jen drop the Internet again?
    TVD
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 11:58 pm | Permalink
    Darryl and His Eunuchs, attackattackattack. Man up.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-angry-parents-stand-up-to-school-board-over-lessons-on-gay-marriage-room-erupts/

    If you give the bureaucrats the children, you might as well give them everything else as well.
    –J Gresham Machen>>>>>>

    Great comment. Few words. Link to a relevant article to show what is happening in the world. Great Machen quote to help get the guys focused on the real problem.

    So, when are you radical 2K guys going to start standing up to the bullies instead of being bullies?

    Like

  90. D. G. Hart
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
    Muddy, never mind. Webster has a webbed brain as well. She already missed Jack’s link that you and I both noted. >>>>>

    So, Brother Hart, are you saying that as the discussion proceeded, you change your mind? In the body of your post you said that she should resign her post if she could not sign the marriage licenses. Also, some Christians should instruct her about her duties as a Christian.

    Now you are saying that just removing her name from the documents would be enough. Is that correct?

    Maybe your position on this particular issue is evolving. I can understand that.

    ——————————————————————————–

    A lot of Christians are commenting on Ms. Davis’ situation. Since she is a new believer, why don’t these people talk directly to Ms. Davis and give her seasoned counsel about the nature of a Christian’s duty rather than using her to make a point in the culture wars?

    Might the people who see this situation as a frightening infringement of religious freedom also recognize that Ms. Davis is still free (even if compelled to issue the licenses) to practice her faith? The restrictions only apply to her work, not to her worship. And Mark Silk (thanks for the correction) invokes President Kennedy it seems to me in a fitting way:

    But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

    Like

  91. The Little Mermaid
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 2:29 am | Permalink
    D. G. Hart
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
    Muddy, never mind. Webster has a webbed brain as well. She already missed Jack’s link that you and I both noted. >>>>>

    What a nasty little man, mocking her to his henchman. You suck, D.

    And Mark Silk (thanks for the correction) invokes President Kennedy it seems to me in a fitting way:

    But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

    Mark Silk is just another liberal academic puke. Mebbe she’s the only one with guts in this whole country. Civil disobedience takes guts.

    Like

  92. TVD
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 2:58 am | Permalink
    The Little Mermaid
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 2:29 am | Permalink
    D. G. Hart
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
    Muddy, never mind. Webster has a webbed brain as well. She already missed Jack’s link that you and I both noted. >>>>>

    What a nasty little man, mocking her to his henchman. You suck, D.

    And Mark Silk (thanks for the correction) invokes President Kennedy it seems to me in a fitting way:

    But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

    Mark Silk is just another liberal academic puke. Mebbe she’s the only one with guts in this whole country. Civil disobedience takes guts.>>>>>

    I think you are right, Tom. Kim has guts.

    Her immoral past and her heretical religious views are irrelevant as far as this case goes. She is holding to her convictions. She tried to protect those under her as well from having to do something that violated their conscience.

    She has guts. You go girl!

    Like

  93. vd, t, I can’t keep up. First you say I mix theology with history and that’s bad.

    Now I want to discuss law and bureaucracy, and you fault me for not discussing theology.

    I’m lost.

    But you are still an anti-dghart bigot.

    Like

  94. Mermaid, what is arresting is the narrow point of Davis not wanting her name on the certificates. I had not thought about that. If you as a devout Roman Catholic all submissive to your ecclesial sovereign were opposed to the death penalty, and if you worked as a state bureaucrat who had to sign off on an execution, would you allow your name to go on the document? Would that be the narrow grounds of your resistance?

    It’s like Pontius Pilate. I say his name two times every Sunday. Did he want his name on that incident?

    Like

  95. Your own wickedness will correct you, and your backslidings will rebuke you. Know therefore and see that it is an evil and bitter thing that you have forsaken the LORD your God and the fear of Me is not in you, says the Lord GOD of hosts.

    Like

  96. DGH: [W]hat is arresting is the narrow point of Davis not wanting her name on the certificates. I had not thought about that. If you as a devout Roman Catholic all submissive to your ecclesial sovereign were opposed to the death penalty, and if you worked as a state bureaucrat who had to sign off on an execution, would you allow your name to go on the document? Would that be the narrow grounds of your resistance?

    Is that particularly different from you as a Christian allowing others to worship Allah in your country, but refusing to do so yourself?

    It seems to me that we all have the correct notion that allowing others to sin is not the same as sinning oneself.

    Hence Davis’ reasoning: If some other clerk wants to lie and declare them lawfully married, I can’t stop that. But I won’t do it.

    Like

  97. Jeff,

    The arresting part of this for me is the name. Is it her name as person or her name as county clerk? As an officer either of the church or of an organization, I can sign something but I’m doing so as an official. What Davis seems to be objecting to is her personal name for an official function. This is one reason why monarchs or popes take on different names. Their name as officer is different from their personal name. But U.S. customs don’t include this. So if Kim Davis’ name as county clerk were Judith VX, would that help?

    Like

  98. @TLM “Since she is a new believer”
    She isn’t a believer. She has converted to a non-Christian (read non-trinitarian) sect. This is why convolving politics with religion is so dangerous – it inevitably results in compromising the faith. Clarity of the gospel is infinitely more important than opposition to gay marriage.

    “Her immoral past and her heretical religious views are irrelevant as far as this case goes. She is holding to her convictions.”
    I agree about her past, but not her religious views. Those are everything as far as eternity is concerned. Liberal protestants and catholics who pushed for ssm when it was very unpopular among the left and right (think Andrew Sullivan) had guts too by the way.

    “She tried to protect those under her as well from having to do something that violated their conscience.”
    That isn’t clear. My understanding is that she did not object to issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, rather she objected to having her name on that license. Not so sure that is wise. Rod Dreher’s take on this case and the way it sets back the cause of religious liberty is worth reading.

    Like

  99. It seems to me that we all have the correct notion that allowing others to sin is not the same as sinning oneself.

    Jeff, but do we all? Davis doesn’t seem to think so, which is why she wants her name stricken, because if it isn’t then the state is causing her to sin, and this allegedly evidences the threat to religious liberty, etc., etc. And her defenders, like the ones here, seem to agree.

    Like

  100. So basically…

    All the other 2Ks on here besides me…

    1) think her looks count against her stance

    2) say she isn’t a Christian because they don’t like her denomination

    3) don’t like women who aren’t obedient and snivelling little mice, maybe they don’t like women in general???

    I say if one is willing to pay the price in order to effect good social change, go for it. This isn’t forcing children to get beaten and attacked by police dogs. Where do I donate to the legal fees?

    The law has evolved through putative nobodies who got the wheels in motion, like Clarence Earl Gideon.

    Like

  101. Would they be able to sit a jury that would convict her unless it was rigged with activists against her?

    What about states more conservative than Kentucky?

    Jury nullification is a higher standard than any SCOTUS decision.

    Since this position is elected, as she ran as a Dem, what prevents 259 of them getting elected on the platform of refusal to sign SSM licenses?

    Like

  102. @kent
    Speaking as a card carrying 2ker, I disagree with #1 and #3. You haven’t construed #2 accurately. It has nothing to do with disliking pentecostal sects (which I don’t), rather she is a member of a group that denies the trinity. Further, they teach that water baptism and speaking in tongues are necessary conditions for salvation. I’m pretty ecumenical, but if we are going to call oneness-pentecostalism Christian, then I don’t see how we exclude Jehovah’s Witnesses or perhaps even Mormonism. She may be “gutsy” and acting on her convictions, but she is setting the cause of religious liberty back by her behavior. The criticism summarized by Dreher strikes me as convincing. She isn’t accomplishing anything positive and rallying around her only compounds the difficulty she is creating for those who value religious liberty in a pluralistic society.

    Like

  103. Sdb, you are entering lulu-bird levels of attacking this woman’s faith…

    2K fails horribly on this reality situation.

    Like

  104. DGH: This is one reason why monarchs or popes take on different names. Their name as officer is different from their personal name.

    Ya know, that specific point never occurred to me. Learn something every day.

    JRC: It seems to me that we all have the correct notion that allowing others to sin is not the same as sinning oneself.

    Zrim: Jeff, but do we all? Davis doesn’t seem to think so, which is why she wants her name stricken, because if it isn’t then the state is causing her to sin…

    Actually, her objection is specific. She believes that her name on the document would be affirming something that is not true.

    And, given her beliefs, she’s actually right about that.

    So it’s not “trying to keep other people from sinning”, but to keep herself from having to sin.

    Now, before anyone counts me as a supporter … I still think she should have resigned. Sorry, Tom.

    Like

  105. BTW, I agree with various OPs that Oneness Pentacostals are at best confused Christians and more likely Sabelians.

    But as a 2k-er of some sort, I don’t think that matters. I’m not going to support her civil rights more if she happens to be Xian or less if she doesn’t.

    So the quality of her faith and affiliation are a red herring IMHO.

    Like

  106. Kent, one, I’m jabbing about her looks as I’m wont to do. If you or women find this unconscionably chauvinist, sorry. Just as I’m purposeful in my words, she’s purposeful in her appearance-we’re even. Second, her looks, more to the point her length of hair, lack of makeup and floor length skirts and uber coverage shirts are uniform for particular fringe, pentecostal, groups, who have no more right to the designation of christian than mormons do. Third, this is exactly the point of 2k designation as to rightly distinguishing between cultic and culture endeavors particularly as the play on religious liberty opportunities. What’s being rejected is her cultic identification(christian) along with misappropriation of martyrdom and religious persecution as paralleled with Trinitarian Christian examples. Finally, 2K acknowledges that the state may exceed it’s lawful bounds and truly infringe upon christian liberties and following the apostolic example, you’re free to exhaust all common legal recourse and then still unjustly or in a religiously antagonistic promise of persecution in this world, bear the retributive hand of the state.

    My take is she’s a woman with an axe to grind, a martyr complex and maybe even viewing this as a type of monastic, penance, rite that will wash away all her bad life choices and grant her a cathartic cleansing.

    Like

  107. @kent – Part of the motivation for 2k is that when churches get involved in the messy world of politics, religious distinctives go by the wayside. When religious leaders hold up Kim Davies as a hero of the faith for her courageous stand, they send a really clear (though perhaps unintended) message that sound doctrine just doesn’t matter – non-trinitarians can be Christians too if you have the right political convictions. I have no problem voting for or working with non-Christians on political issues as a citizen, but I have a big problem with doing so in the name of my faith. It is worth reflecting on Judah’s response to external threats as they neared Babylonian captivity. Their problem was mainly spiritual, but they kept turning to worldly methods to save their skins. It cost them…big time. This is what I see much of conservative protestants doing – the threat our churches face isn’t coming from the outside, it is largely within. Yet our attention is overwhelmingly directed outward. We count the number of chariots our enemies have and think our only choice is to align with Egypt (only pansies would recommend praying and reforming worship…what are we anabaptists?). But here we are. Continually compromising our gospel witness so we can engage in lost cause rear guard battles while the culture zooms away. Anyone calling for discernment or caution is just a compromiser. Alan Jacobs has provided a helpful corrective to one such charge.

    Like

  108. @Jeff
    Eugene Volokh has an interesting take on the case here. He looks at Title VII and concludes the following:

    There’s a lot of appeal to the “you take the job, you follow the rules — if you have a religious objection to the rules, quit the job” approach may be. But it’s not the approach that modern American federal employment law has taken, or the approach that the state religious exemption law in Kentucky and many other states has taken.

    Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to transport alcohol, Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t want to raise flags, Sabbatarians (Jewish or Christian) who don’t want to work Saturdays, and philosophical vegetarians who don’t want to hand out hamburger coupons can take advantage of this law. Conservative Christian county clerks who don’t want to have their names listed on marriage certificates and licenses likely can, too.

    Like

  109. Sdb: What exactly has come from the Daleiden videos?

    Hard to say. TX and Harris Co both have opened a legal investigation, which is the right course of action.

    the question about Daleiden was not whether abortion is right or wrong. We all actually agree (except in the case of ectopic pregnancies) on that.

    The question was whether it is right to lie in order to get the videos made.

    And we took different positions on that question. But those who had concerns about the lying have been partially vindicated. Daleiden’s willingness to lie in order to make the videos has opened up a window of opportunity for his opponents to accuse him of lying in the content of the videos.

    There is no debate about abortion. There is a debate about ways and means.

    Like

  110. @ SDB:

    Yes, I found that piece to be helpful both in clarifying her argument and also her legal situation. I don’t have a problem with his legal position. She may yet prevail.

    But if she were to ask me for advice, I would tell her that the right thing to do is to resign in protest.

    Like

  111. It’s extraordinary that nobody cares about facts. We are so politicized that, even here, people make up their own narrative as if it really exists.

    Jeff, if I call you out consider it a compliment because my hope are highest that you will deal with them. And here are the facts I don’t see you taking into account:

    – this is not a case of Ms. Davis refusing SSM. She has stopped doing all marriages. Heteros with a right to marry under anyone’s view of marriage are being denied licenses. Whether or not any SSM ever came through, she would be denying marriages. This is clearly a dereliction of her duties and impeachable non-performance of basic duty. Parenthetically, it speaks of a woman wanting attention more than it does a person caught in a tough case of conscience.

    – when her name goes on a license she is stating that the couple has met the prerequisites for marriage – the ceremony performed by others – under Kentucky law. This is true whether the marriage is hetero or same sex, and it not a declaration of her approbation.

    Now can you deal with the issue?
    _______________

    Kent, you have been around long enough to know that one person saying something about her looks does not mean that is “the 2k” position. So you are knowingly misrepresenting 2k. Your credibility is taking a real hit with your recent rhetoric.

    Like

  112. “Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them…”

    Does the WCF matter?

    Like

  113. Jeff Cagle
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
    @ SDB:

    Yes, I found that piece to be helpful both in clarifying her argument and also her legal situation. I don’t have a problem with his legal position. She may yet prevail.

    But if she were to ask me for advice, I would tell her that the right thing to do is to resign in protest.

    That was my thought. They will get her. Dissent and disobedience are the highest forms of patriotism, unless you get in their way. Then they are ruthless. They will crush you, and they will crush Kim Davis. This was never in dispute.

    On the other hand, is it so bad to fight and lose? Perhaps it will give guts to the next person. Perhaps the next person will win. Or the one after that.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/22/the-civil-disobedience-charles-murray-wants-has-already-arrived/

    Would Machen hand over his children to the authorities?

    Like

  114. vd, t, would you hand your children over to the priest and bishop? If you accept church authority, why not civil authority?

    Or are you one of those rad trads? Problem there is you don’t go to church.

    Like

  115. @ Muddy:

    Thanks for the pushback.

    (1) I agree, that might change our evaluation of what she’s trying to accomplish. It doesn’t change my assessment that she should have resigned instead of taking this route.

    Attention-seeking? Possible. She might have gotten hyped-up from the legal firm representing her. Speaking as a non-lawyer, her refusal to sign any licenses seems to complicate her appeal.

    She seems to have tried the “no marriage thing” as a gambit to avoid signing off on SSM, though. So while the effect really was dereliction of duty, the intent was to avoid sin.

    (2) In other words, you are saying that she is not the county judge who is actually marrying them. (S)he gets to deal with his own issues! That’s a fair point. Still and all, does the license say that these two can be lawfully married? Then her issue remains.

    The larger question is how we want to think about civil law in relationship to God’s law.

    Is civil law entirely transparent wrt to God’s law, even in terms of natural law? If so, then she should have no problem signing because she is speaking ONLY as a representative of the state of KY.

    But in that case, civil government is more like the Anabaptist or Augustinian view of the kingdom of man: a positive evil, declaring to be good what God has said is not, and otherwise, with authority.

    Or is civil law narrowly connected to God’s law through the bridge of natural law? If so, then she should feel bound to uphold what is right, at least at the level of refraining from calling evil, good, or calling married, those who cannot be lawfully married.

    I understand 2k to be this position, more or less.

    OR, is civil law thickly connected to God’s Law through Biblical revelation? If so, then she has an obligation to bring her office into conformity with Scripture. We wish her well in her new endeavor. She should not only refuse to sign the licenses, but she should be working 24/7 to bring every square inch of that office (at $4/in^2, no less) under the Lordship of Christ. Starting with a ban on cat videos.

    I understand this to be the transformationalist/neo-Cal position, except for my last snarky sentence.

    Where would you fall? Do you disagree with the taxonomy? Keep talking.

    Like

  116. Sean- “her length of hair, lack of makeup and floor length skirts and uber coverage shirts are uniform for particular fringe, pentecostal, groups, who have no more right to the designation of christian than mormons do”

    mcmark–Good point on the dress code. Do you have any idea how a church can reject jewish cult without rejecting jewish culture? Or how a church can reject jewish culture without at the same time embracing gentile culture?

    Or how a baptist church can reject Reformed cult without rejecting Reformed culture?

    Edward S. Casey — “The very word culture meant “place tilled” in Middle English, and the same word goes back to Latin colere, “to inhabit, care for, till, worship” and cultus.

    The distinction between cult and culture is not necessarily anti-Constantinian because if often serves the purpose of majority regimes and ideology.

    To have a culture is to inhabit a PLACE sufficiently to cultivate it — to be responsible for it.

    1. Paul —circumcision is nothing ,but also non-circumcision is nothing

    2. certain Galatianists–we agree with you Paul, so why not be quiet when we encourage these gentiles to be circumcised

    3. if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing

    4. we thought you said it was nothing, Paul– there you go again, talking about circumcision again, why don’t you stick to the gospel?

    5 in that case, uncircumcision is not nothing, i would rather those who tell gentiles to do it would castrate themselves

    Like

  117. So we might as well go here. Fairfax Co VA just voted to adopt human sexuality standards to be taught grades 1-12. Those include, to no-one’s surprise, discussions of gender identity in grades 9-10 (http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/translations/PDF_FILES/fle/fleformsdescriptions/gradenine/fleprogramdescriptionbiology/english.pdf).

    Muddy: So what happens if you as a teacher are required to disseminate material that conflicts with your beliefs?

    Like

  118. Why do various parties in this thread, including the host, appear to speak of Ms. Davis as if she were anti-Trinitarian? Has she made some sort of statement to that effect?

    The church to which she belongs–the Apostolic Christian Church–affirms the Trinity. Why do parties here and elsewhere keep speaking of her as if she denies such?

    Like

  119. D. G. Hart
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, would you hand your children over to the priest and bishop? If you accept church authority, why not civil authority?

    Or are you one of those rad trads? Problem there is you don’t go to church.

    Dodge after dodge after dodge, always attackattackattack, never answering straight. What a predictable bore.

    Would you obey the Fugitive Slave Act? Turn the slaves over to their “rightful” owners?

    On the other hand, is it so bad to fight and lose? Perhaps it will give guts to the next person. Perhaps the next person will win. Or the one after that.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/22/the-civil-disobedience-charles-murray-wants-has-already-arrived/

    Would Machen hand over his children to the authorities?

    Like

  120. kent
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
    So basically…

    All the other 2Ks on here besides me…

    1) think her looks count against her stance

    2) say she isn’t a Christian because they don’t like her denomination

    3) don’t like women who aren’t obedient and snivelling little mice, maybe they don’t like women in general???

    I say if one is willing to pay the price in order to effect good social change, go for it. This isn’t forcing children to get beaten and attacked by police dogs. Where do I donate to the legal fees?

    The law has evolved through putative nobodies who got the wheels in motion, like Clarence Earl Gideon.

    Good for you, bro. You get it.

    Like

  121. Jeff:

    “She might have gotten hyped-up from the legal firm representing her.”

    At at distance, it’s hard to say but my guess is that she got hyped up by fasting, praying, and attending apostolic worship services multiple times per week prior to the SCOTUS SSM decision. Her actions speak more of advice from fellow apostolic believers or “the leading of the Spirit” more than advice from legal counsel.

    “She seems to have tried the “no marriage thing” as a gambit to avoid signing off on SSM, though.”

    This would have been simple and elegant: refuse the first SSM applicant. She didn’t do that. The subsequent legal explanation that she was trying to avoid “disparate impact” seems ludicrous, since she should also not agree that gays should be beneficiaries of a disparate impact analysis either.

    “does the license say that these two can be lawfully married?”

    Judge Bunning said “The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.” After looking at the form, I can’t find any inaccuracy with his assessment. It does not say “natural lawfully” qualified, but qualified under the law of the land.

    “Or is civil law narrowly connected to God’s law through the bridge of natural law? If so, then she should feel bound to uphold what is right, at least at the level of refraining from calling evil, good, or calling married, those who cannot be lawfully married”

    Ideally it is. But governments are never ideal – they fall short in many ways. So what does a Christian do about the inevitable failure of the government to align with natural law? The Bible and the WCF give us a strong presumption against rebellion and a strong presumption in favor of the legitimacy of governments despite their many failings. Even Caesar, and a Christian could serve in his army.

    Christianity is not a (civil) revolutionary religion. Jesus set up no earthly kingdom, and the New Testament is devoid of instructions on how the early Christians were to rebel. So we come to “obey the magistrate.”

    Now we come to “obey God rather than man,” but this is understood to be the obligation to refuse to sin when ordered if ordered to do so. A verification that a couple has met the legal requirements to marry under the laws of the Kentucky involves no sin, but is a statement that is verifiably true.

    Two other matters. First, if everyone gets to enforce their own personal view of what the civil law says, we will soon be in greater disorder than we are currently. If she gets to be her own SCOTUS, so does the atheist and every one else. Order is a great benefit to the church and enables us to have so many of the liberties we possess.

    Finally, what about her vow?

    “the Court must draw her attention to the first half of Article VI, Clause § 3. It requires all state officials to swear an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Davis swore such an oath when she took office on January 1, 2015. However, her actions have not been consistent with her words. Davis has refused to comply with binding legal jurisprudence, and in doing so, she has likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents.”

    One may never take a vow to a standard under the subjective intent of complying with it only as to one’s own interpretation apart from the interpretation recognized by our system of law. By analogy, think of a minister whose idiosyncratic view of an important provision of the WCF is what he vows to believe in rather than the meaning as commonly understood.

    We agree that she violated the rights of heteros who were denied a license, correct?

    Like

  122. Actually, her objection is specific. She believes that her name on the document would be affirming something that is not true.

    And, given her beliefs, she’s actually right about that.

    Jeff, that actually sounds more like you than Davis. I think she believes it would be affirming sin which would then make her culpable. You seem to agree when you say to MG “…while the effect really was dereliction of duty, the intent was to avoid sin.” So back to my original point–I don’t think we all agree that that allowing others to sin is not the same as sinning oneself, etc.

    Re counseling refusal, I get it but isn’t that also to foster a sensitive conscience and undermine a more Protestant view of believers (I know, contested in her case but for the sake of the point to actual believers here) being able to serve in governmental capacities even when those tasks might intersect with things immoral. Counsel might be, You’re not personally guilty of anything in issuing licenses so get back to work.

    PS “Confused” is likely Charter, who has manifested himself variously in recent days here and gotten rightfully zapped. Your comments to him might as well, so counsel here is to not waste anymore of your energies.

    Like

  123. @ Zrim: My “SC” in the quote tags was the acknowledgement of his identity, ie: Skeptical Charter. I don’t mind spending a little energy towards a good cause.

    @ Muddy: I’m mostly persuaded. If the form simply says that the state of KY recognizes these two to meet the legal requirements, then that’s all it says.

    But my lingering question is this.

    “Who says that these two may be lawfully married?”
    “The clerk of Rowan County.”

    She’s not just a robot verifying a checklist. Her word in fact creates a new legal situation for the two. Yes? No? Not a lawyer here.

    Like

  124. She goes to the Morehead Solid Rock Apostolic Church. Jeff, did you see that church in the directory at your website?

    Ultimately, it doesn’t materially change the discussion IMO.

    Like

  125. Well, there it is. Solid Rock Church, Morehead, KY in Rowan Co.

    Hard to keep up with the “Apostolic Churches.” Kind of like the “People’s Front of Judea.”

    Like

  126. Jeff:
    Who says that these two may be lawfully married?”
    “The clerk of Rowan County.”
    She’s not just a robot verifying a checklist. Her word in fact creates a new legal situation for the two. Yes? No? Not a lawyer here.”

    Jeff, I don’t know that being a lawyer makes much of a difference on this point, but think of her title: “clerk.” Not judge, and not minister. She’s checking documents. Are the blanks filled in? Are they of age? Has it been notarized? Does the law of Kentucky allow them to be married? If so, the form is adequate and the couple is entitled to all the legal entanglements that the state attaches to marriage.

    Like

  127. OK, I can buy that. All I know is that when the Mrs. and I got married, the clerk was the last thing standing in the way between us and the minister.

    Like

  128. Jeff, regarding your question on taxonomy, maybe Jed or someone else can take it up. Honestly, I just believe certain things to be correct and I’m sometimes told my positions are 2k. So be it, but I’m not consciously deducing from “what is 2k?”

    Like

  129. Two things bear mentioning: 1) the apostolic directory site seems to be ad-driven and may not be official or authoritative 2) she may be a bad or ignorant apostolic believer. She may just be an emotionalistic or legalistic semi-Pelagian, which would make her a perfect evangelical. But from what I know (in neighboring TN) most apostolics are anti-trinitarian and are as heretical as TD Jakes and are mega-creepy.

    Like

  130. @ Muddy:

    But our resolution leaves the crucial question untouched. So let’s move it back: You are a county judge who is asked to preside over a same-sex wedding. You

    (a) Refuse and be the next Kim Davis
    (b) Resign
    (c) Preside
    (d) Preside under protest
    (e) Other

    Like

  131. McMark, per usual, I get lost in your responses and questions. But how about Israel being unique, and making ongoing distinctions between God’s rule as creator over all and God’s rule as redeemer over His elect. Some overlap, undoubtedly, but lots of privileged citizenship-sons and daughters and cultic conformity and relational entanglement distinct from how God rules the common realm in this age(1 cor 5).

    Like

  132. I’ll second the above comment that it’s best to just not feed Erik. He’ll be deleted when Darryl gets back.

    Right now I have a hawk in distress in my backyard and I’m trying to figure out why.

    Like

  133. That’s helpful, MG

    I had read that she was a member of the ACC, which is decidedly Trinitarian. What you link to indicates that she is a member of a particular church that belongs to the Apostolic Pentecostal Churches, which are anti-Trinitarian and baptize in the name of Jesus only.

    I also read, as I looked around a bit, that it is not clear which her particular local church, which is the Solid Rock At-Apostolic Church (Morehead, KY), is: the ACC or the APC.

    So, it is not clear to me whether she is Trinitarian or not. I do not suggest that this makes any legal, or any other civil, difference. I just want to get that matter right, since whether or not she believes in the Trinity is something that we should correctly report.

    Like

  134. Sean, here’s the short version of the question—how can a church reject jewish cult without rejecting jewish culture and without embracing gentile culture?

    I am assuming that “church” is those who are not only created but redeemed. Does a “cult” which is neither jewish nor gentile have no “culture”, and therefore no “gentile culture”?

    “Natural law” was not enough for Adam before the fall, but now it is for the “common realm”?

    Like

  135. What? No jokes about the hawk in distress being a portent of the upcoming U of Iowa Hawkeye football season? I think it was a first year hawk that isn’t too adept at hunting yet. Fun fact: the police in my Maine hometown once phone me to request help with a bird on Main Street. I slowly approached it, made it walk left, made it walk right, and then caught it in mid-air as it took flight. “I’ll take care of it from here, officers.”

    Jeff, I think your question is different but obviously it’s related thematically.Judges are closer to the action than a clerk so it seems to me causation is arguably closer between action and a possibly objectionable result. Newark broached this issue in a different thread. I’m not sure where I’ll end up yet so let me talk around it a little bit to set some context.

    It’s 2015 and this question does seem more pressing than it used to be. Should it? Well, maybe that’s somewhere near the conclusion of the conversation. But it should be noted that judges have often had to hold their noses, so to speak, when ruling. Conservatives used to like that, calling it “judicial restraint.” Some have had to hold their nose over mandatory sentencing when they thought there was a gross injustice in particular cases, e.g., heavy minimum sentences for small amounts of marijuana. Judges may have personally not liked fines on businesses exacted by regulatory agencies. They may have been pro-life yet sentenced pro-life protesters by the book. So there have always been situations – including constitutional issues – in which judges have said “well, I have to follow the rule of law.”

    Of course, people want to get to abortion and same sex marriage. But before we get there, what are we to think of these cases that have been going on for many years? Should judges have ruled the way statutes and precedent demanded that they rule, or should they have ruled according to their conviction? If you feel like that question prejudices the direction of the conversation feel free to suggest a better question.

    Like

  136. McMark, aren’t we human before we are christian? IOW, we don’t escape our human cultural context. But, the cultic context/culture is no longer a distinctly semitic one. I agree there was an conflating, in a republication sense, in the Israelite context but aside from historical considerations and NC prescriptions that may hearken back, as Paul would say, those have been done away with. As regards Adam, the best answer I know to give, to what I think you’re alluding to, is that the fall happened and cult and culture(theocratic) were separated. We could go into the intended temporality of even the Edenic situation(marriage and childbirth being primary products of ‘culture’) and the graduation we have in glory from even that ‘perfect’ temporality, but that may be going too far afield for this discussion.

    Like

  137. Yeah, Davis is a bit of a nutcase, but really. Obergefell was constitutional?
    (Or Roe Wade ?)
    Contempt of the constitution is more like it.

    FTM both Sotomayer and Ginsberg presided at ssms before they were legal.
    But some civil disobedience is more equal than other civil disobedience, natch.
    Call me Benjamin.
    We won’t say who is playing Squealer’s role, but there sure are a lot of folks auditioning for the part.

    IOW the big picture is the imposition of lawlessness by law.
    And we better get used to it if we can’t see the forest for the trees, all the while the chorus of good little R2k German Christians tell us they were just doing their job.
    Funny how that worked at the Nuremburg trials.

    Likewise forget John Fea’s “traditional Christian marriage” rhetoric. There is no natural law argument or precedent that justifies what the Supremes did.

    More to the point is Sam Francis’s remark here

    There are ways to stop the judicial legitimization of homosexual marriage without amending the Constitution. We already have the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and states may (and should) pass their own laws against same-sex marriages.

    But most important is the measure most Republicans will never embrace because it would mean seriously fighting and even destroying judicial liberalism once and for all.

    That measure is based on the provision of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution says, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”`Gay Marriage Amendment` Is The Wrong Tactic, 3/1/2004

    But Congress is either ignorant and therefore incompetent to its job or it is not willing to stand up to the gaystapo bullies.

    Maybe that’s because the pink nazis are actually implementing the agenda for the big govt. conservatives who are on the same team as the big govt. liberals, whatever the former says to the contrary on TV or in the press releases.
    Meanwhile the trainwreck continues and confused dithering predominates.

    If those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, we are getting there in a hurry.

    Like

  138. Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to transport alcohol, Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t want to raise flags, Sabbatarians (Jewish or Christian) who don’t want to work Saturdays, and philosophical vegetarians who don’t want to hand out hamburger coupons can take advantage of this law. Conservative Christian county clerks who don’t want to have their names listed on marriage certificates and licenses likely can, too.

    Volkh’s got a lot of nerve. When this was going down, they were sure pushing ssm at his site (not to mention all the big law firms were in the tank for ssm). Now maybe the guy is starting to see the problems, but I wasn’t too impressed reading the VC before this all hit the fan.

    Like

  139. @ Bob: Good point about Volkh. My suspicion is that he aims for a maximal libertarianism (similar to many of the posters at The Federalist) and is hoping that the gay wedding cake can be had and eaten also.

    Like

  140. MG: But it should be noted that judges have often had to hold their noses, so to speak, when ruling. Conservatives used to like that, calling it “judicial restraint.” Some have had to hold their nose over mandatory sentencing when they thought there was a gross injustice in particular cases, e.g., heavy minimum sentences for small amounts of marijuana. Judges may have personally not liked fines on businesses exacted by regulatory agencies. They may have been pro-life yet sentenced pro-life protesters by the book. So there have always been situations – including constitutional issues – in which judges have said “well, I have to follow the rule of law.”

    Yes, this is the essence of the problem, and not only for Christian judges.

    I guess I had never thought about how acutely torn judges must be, caught in the intersection of the law of man on the one hand and justice on the other.

    So what happens if a judge refuses to enforce a law?

    Like

  141. Jeff, I doubt many judges are acutely torn. My doubt is supported by observation and the fact that they tend to hold on to their jobs for a long time while making less money than they would in firms. On the whole, they tend to follow the law and see that as their job. Those who have tended to deviate the most often in recent decades have been the liberals, and that deviation has been the rallying point for Republican candidates. I was aware of a district court judge who couldn’t stomach family law but that was due to the difficulty of the decisions combined with their life-changing consequences.

    Part of the rub is that a judge who simply thumbs his nose at the law is ineffectual to change the matter; his decision will likely get reversed on an appeal. I doubt many will be sympathetic on this point, but judges who are frequently overruled lose respect from fellow judges and attorneys. Anyway, the reward for judicial rebellion in any given case is a clear conscience rather than changing anything for the better.

    Like

  142. MG, just observation of myself and others. We tend to justify our own risk aversion and discomfort with change by loading up resistance with religious conscience objections. Insularity brings perceived comfort and safety. I believe God may utilize tension and discomfort more than we would like to accept.

    Like

  143. Erik, I won’t reveal the name of your employer but, generically speaking, he does property management. Until you get deleted maybe you can tell us about how your employer avoids renting to gays and cohabiting heteros. But then maybe it’s only other people who have to be pristine.

    Like

  144. Judges aren’t the only people who arguably and in some sense enable sin in their occupation. Landlords provide living quarters for those engaged in immoral living arrangements. Gun manufacturers are connected to murders. Mailmen deliver Playboys. Pharmaceutical companies provide addictive drugs. Academic institutions teach a mix of truth and falsehood. Our favorite candidates – yes, even St. Huckabee – have compromised repeatedly, which is merely to say they are politicians. To be remote from sin is to retreat to a monastery, and even there sin will find you. Total separation is not possible, so in terms of “how should be live,” our focus should not be on fairly direct involvement, like actively committing the sin itself or being a substantial cause of it. To give one example, a pornographer would be guilty (substantial cause) but the mailman who delivers it would not.

    Still talking around the subject and putting it into a larger context.

    I see too much Muddy Gravel over to the left so if no one takes up this thread I’ll just let it die.

    Like

  145. The judge worked out a work around and Ms. Davis still refused:

    As Volokh notes, Title VII does not apply to civil servants like Ms. Davis. And, it seems to me from the transcript, that the judge offered her a reasonable accommodation: Permitting the assistant clerks to sign the marriage licenses. She declined that accommodation. I confess I lost some of my sympathy for Ms. Davis when she refused what seemed to be a workable accommodation, but she gained it back about a minute later when the judge ordered her to jail. Jail? Is that how we should deal with these cases? Can’t the judge order an interim remedy, while the Kentucky legislature finds a more permanent solution? After all, while Ms. Davis sits in jail, her assistants are now issuing the licenses at the heart of the controversy. Couldn’t the judge order they do so with her at home? I understand that Ms. Davis is unwittingly exemplifying the thing she claims to dread, the government impeding conscience rights. She is a government official impeding other people’s consciences. But, that does not mean the government should punish her with jail.

    Like

  146. MG, seconded. This has been my point with regard to the counsel to resign. It makes some sense as far as it goes. But while letting a conscience have its conclusions is one thing, it’s not clear that coddling a sensitive conscience is all that Protestant. If one is worried that one’s lawful vocation is in some way to cooperate with or approve sin then maybe this is an opportunity to clarify Protestant spirituality instead of confusing it in order to jump on cultural and political bandwagons (which have a way of running down innocent bystanders).

    Like

  147. I said

    so in terms of “how should be live,” our focus should not be on fairly direct involvement,

    I should have said

    so in terms of “how should WE live,” our focus should BE on fairly direct involvement,

    These typos seemed worse than the usual typos I offer up.

    Like

  148. sean
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 9:31 am | Permalink
    MG, just observation of myself and others. We tend to justify our own risk aversion and discomfort with change by loading up resistance with religious conscience objections. Insularity brings perceived comfort and safety.

    You mean like Darryl and the Eunuchs. Quite. They have stand in line to surrender. Take a number. They can speak only of man’s law. God’s law, the natural law, the eternal law, is up in the clouds somewhere, never to land on earth.

    http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2015/09/more-attacks-on-glenn-beck-and-david.html

    Jeff Cagle
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    Yes, this is the essence of the problem, and not only for Christian judges.

    I guess I had never thought about how acutely torn judges must be, caught in the intersection of the law of man on the one hand and justice on the other.

    So what happens if a judge refuses to enforce a law?

    Exactly.

    GUTS—What if 100s of Christian officeholders did what Kim Davis is doing? Surely something would change. They can’t throw EVERYBODY in jail!

    Reply Retweet Favorite 1 View Tweet activity
    More

    Like

  149. Well Jeff, my maximal libertarian take on it is, if somebody wants to marry the little green man from Mars, they are free to do so. they just shouldn’t count on me baking them a wedding cake.

    (Never mind that in all the scenarios, the vendors sold flowers, cakes, what have you to the aggrieved. They just balked when it came to redefining gravity a basic institution/reality.)

    Judges aren’t the only people who arguably and in some sense enable sin in their occupation. Landlords provide living quarters for those engaged in immoral living arrangements. . . . .

    Mud, until the Supremes outlawed discrimination ie. the freedom of association, landlords had some say. Avin’s What is a Place of “Public” Accommodation? (Marquette Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, ’68) is interesting in regard to the PC meme that a private business is under the same kind of constitutional strictures as the civil government.

    Like

  150. Ursalina, Try untwisting this sentence:

    A number of students refused to watch a video that conveyed the view that it’s wrong to go against homosexuality and that a person’s gender identity cannot be changed.

    Like

  151. Bob, I don’t see the world through the lens of a race narrative but if it was legal to deny accommodations and services in general to blacks, Christians would still be doing just that. But I wonder if this sheds light on something that’s been puzzling me: theonomists espousing libertarianism. They seem opposed, but maybe “libertarianism” in this context is code for the repeal of all civil rights laws that have been imposed on the states.

    Like

  152. @ DGH: You lost me. The students refused. They were compelled to watch anyway. The judge (Bunning) who compelled them was overturned after the fact.

    Sounds tangled up to me.

    Like

  153. I got an email with the following:
    __________
    Here are the conditions and principles we can derive from the Bible and historical role models of peaceful civil disobedience like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    > An Unjust Law (man-made) exists that arguably violates a superior non-negotiable principle or moral law.
    > A Just Law (higher law) exists that is not in alignment with or contradicts the Unjust Law and/or the duties flowing from the Unjust Law.
    > An actual conflict exists between the Unjust Law (1) and the Higher Law (2).

    The Christian facing this dilemma understands the nature of the conflict and is willing to faithfully obey God, pay the price and bear the consequences for disobeying the Unjust Law in favor of the Higher Law (including verbal and physical abuse, jail, and even death).
    ____________
    This seems to be the mainstream argument for Huckabites.

    Discuss.

    PS, at some point ML King Jr. replaced the apostle Paul as the standard. When did that happen?

    Like

  154. Jeff, the headline in the web address was students forced to “watch gay video.” Sounds like they were watching homo erotic sex.

    Second, not sure this is much of a news source.

    Third, not sure the sentence I quoted couldn’t have been clear. “Conveyed the view.” weak. “wrong to go against homosexuality.” Well, what does that mean? “gender identity can’t be changed.” Maybe that’s clear, but it’s a macroagression against Caitlyn Jenner.

    My suspicion is that conservatives and Christians look for this stuff and hope to be offended.

    Like

  155. MG – PS, at some point ML King Jr. replaced the apostle Paul as the standard. When did that happen?

    Indeed. Anyone can make anything say anything, but reading through the early chapters of Acts it’s hard to see how Dr. King could square w/ it.

    File under: “Why we still need to preach/read/study the Book of Acts”

    Like

  156. Just an observation: I think a small number of politicized individuals have used insults, swearing and harassment to stifle this conversation.

    Don’t forget it: that’s who these people are. And, if they had power, that’s how they would roll.

    Like

  157. Jas, somewhere out there is a video of Tom Terrific repeatedly describing his favorite piece of silverware. Not the spoon, and not the knife.

    Like

  158. Urs and Jeff,

    His decision was appealed to the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned his ruling in October 2007 and sided with Morrison.

    So much for the slouch toward an “increasingly fascist government through an aggressive Dept. of Justice buttressed by an arrogant judiciary” per Reeder and the Bandwagon Gang. Still looks like America is working and religious liberty isn’t quite as threatened as many imagine.

    https://harryreeder.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/kim-davis-state-criminal-church-discipline/

    Like

  159. I hate sensitivity training videos and the policy + videos that were the subject of Bunning’s earlier decision were out of line. Having said that, the Christianity Today piece is a good example of bad and slanted journalism. First, a quick glance at the headlines could lead someone to believe that Judge Bunning forced students to watch gay porn. That aside, the impression we are supposed to get is that Bunning had an insidious and coercive pro-gay attitude.

    Sorry. Here’s what happened: the school changed its policy in reaction to complaints and then allowed non-threatening speech against homosexuality. Dealing with a motions for summary judgment (= there are sufficient undisputed facts to reach a decision without need of a trial), Judge Bunning said he was “not inclined to adjudge the constitutionality of policies no longer in effect.” The question was somewhat on the subtle side: should the lawsuit continue to trial after the policy was changed for the better, especially when only nominal damages were requested. The reversing appeals court said the matter could go to trial rather than be resolved by Bunning’s summary judgment.

    Did this analysis drain all the energy out of the room? So sorry. There was no evidence of an agenda from Judge Bunning. A suggestion to the contrary is just slander.

    The first thing to perish in a political environment is the 9th commandment.

    Like

  160. What if the clerk serving Kim Davis‘ fourth marriage had denied her?

    Knowing what we know about Kentucky, might it be reasonable to assume that Kim Davis’ own four marriage licences and three divorce decrees were signed by Christians? Does her act of denying same-sex licences not impugn all of them? Each of those clerk’s failed to stand in the way of remarriages and multiple divorces that the Bible condemns. Where same-sex marriage advocates only have to side-step the Bible’s silence, anyone who wants to advocate for divorce and remarriage has a steep theological hill to climb. The proverbial no-throwing-stones-in-glass-houses seems an apt here.

    I realize that she was not a Christian until her current re-marriage to Joe Davis, but that only fuels the argument that she is applying to others a standard that was not applied to her when she sought to utilize the state’s courts in affirming her marriage-divorce, marriage-divorce, marriage-divorce, marriage merry-go-round.

    Like

  161. Muddy Gravel:
    “does the license say that these two can be lawfully married?”

    Judge Bunning said “The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law.” After looking at the form, I can’t find any inaccuracy with his assessment. It does not say “natural lawfully” qualified, but qualified under the law of the land.>>>>

    You may not like Ms. Davis. You may not like her hair, her clothes, her glasses, her theology, or her past moral failings. I can see how you, as a lawyer, might use all of that against her to discredit her as a defendant or a witness if you were prosecuting her. I can see how your Christian faith would not keep you from doing your very best to destroy the woman if you ever got her on a witness stand.

    However, do you really like the US Supreme Court making law for the whole country? A lot of us are uncomfortable with that.

    Do they have the right to do that? What does it matter what right they have when they have to power to do that?

    This seems like a very small issue. Get someone to sign the marriage licenses whose conscience is not violated. No big deal. Or is it a big deal?

    Why even you, the anti-bandwagon king has gotten on the anti-Kim Davis bandwagon. See, people like you are in power, and people like you threw Davis in jail for refusing to bow down to the man.

    Not all of us are in agreement, but what can we do if our federal government decides from one day to the next that what has been moral law for, like, ever, is now against the law? Do we bow down?

    And, yes, we are all influenced by our backgrounds – and those years under Pinochet kind of made a mark on me, along with numerous visits to a neighboring Communist hell hole.

    ———————————————-
    TVD
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 6:07 pm | Permalink
    kent
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
    So basically…

    All the other 2Ks on here besides me…

    1) think her looks count against her stance

    2) say she isn’t a Christian because they don’t like her denomination

    3) don’t like women who aren’t obedient and snivelling little mice, maybe they don’t like women in general???

    I say if one is willing to pay the price in order to effect good social change, go for it. This isn’t forcing children to get beaten and attacked by police dogs. Where do I donate to the legal fees?

    The law has evolved through putative nobodies who got the wheels in motion, like Clarence Earl Gideon.

    Good for you, bro. You get it.

    Like

  162. Webster, did I talk about her appearance? I don’t think so. Admittedly she seems familiar to me because I’ve spent some time with folks religiously like her.

    I believe the abortion decision and the SSM decision were bad constitutional law. There was bad constitutional reasoning a decision in a Georgia criminal statute that set up and made the SSM decision inevitable; I guess everyone was sleeping when that was decided.

    The gist of what I have said about Clerk Davis is that it is no sin to sign a piece of paper saying two people have met all the requirements for the legal concept of marriage under the laws of Kentucky.

    But, more generally, feel free to give us your theory on when we may rebel against a law.

    Like

  163. Muddy Gravel
    Posted September 9, 2015 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
    Webster, did I talk about her appearance? I don’t think so. Admittedly she seems familiar to me because I’ve spent some time with folks religiously like her.

    I believe the abortion decision and the SSM decision were bad constitutional law. There was bad constitutional reasoning a decision in a Georgia criminal statute that set up and made the SSM decision inevitable; I guess everyone was sleeping when that was decided.

    The gist of what I have said about Clerk Davis is that it is no sin to sign a piece of paper saying two people have met all the requirements for the legal concept of marriage under the laws of Kentucky.

    But, more generally, feel free to give us your theory on when we may rebel against a law.

    Instead of punking the nice Catholic lady, tough guy, why don’t you and Darryl and the Eunuchs answer that one instead of attacking everyone else?

    Like

  164. muddy:
    But, more generally, feel free to give us your theory on when we may rebel against a law.>>>>

    You explain what law she is rebelling against. Is the Supreme Court in violation of the Constitution, or is Ms. Davis?

    And you slandered her because of her alleged religious appearance that you have seen in others. You mocked her and her religion.

    This judge – though I am sure he is a good man trying to do the right thing as well – made an example of Ms. Davis. This is what will happen to all the low level public servants and public employees if they do not bow down to the dictates of the federal government. Do not mess with the federal government, or you will pay a price is the clear message sent, especially on this issue of marriage.

    Now if that message were clearly sent in all cases where bureaucrats abuse their power – think the IRS – then fine. Maybe someone thought that Ms. Davis would be an easy mark. Besides, in what way did she abuse her power? She is exercising what little power she believes herself to have as a faithful servant of the people of the county in Kentucky that elected her.

    A compromise could have been worked out easily, but the judge chose not to. Of course, this will eventually be worked out, but will it work in favor of individual rights and freedom of conscience or not?

    Like

  165. TVD
    Posted September 9, 2015 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
    Muddy Gravel
    Posted September 9, 2015 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
    Webster, did I talk about her appearance? I don’t think so. Admittedly she seems familiar to me because I’ve spent some time with folks religiously like her.

    I believe the abortion decision and the SSM decision were bad constitutional law. There was bad constitutional reasoning a decision in a Georgia criminal statute that set up and made the SSM decision inevitable; I guess everyone was sleeping when that was decided.

    The gist of what I have said about Clerk Davis is that it is no sin to sign a piece of paper saying two people have met all the requirements for the legal concept of marriage under the laws of Kentucky.

    But, more generally, feel free to give us your theory on when we may rebel against a law.

    Instead of punking the nice Catholic lady, tough guy, why don’t you and Darryl and the Eunuchs answer that one instead of attacking everyone else?

    ————————————-

    I would love to hear your theory, Muddy Gravel, since you understand legal matters much better than I do. I am pretty ignorant as it has already been pointed out.

    When is it okay to stand up to the government and tell them you are not going to obey? Maybe Brother Hart would also like to weigh in on this.

    Like

  166. One more try, but shorter.

    “And you slandered her because of her alleged religious appearance that you have seen in others. You mocked her and her religion.”
    I don’t think I did these things. Are you sure?

    The judge was in a tough spot. Normally the legislature would deal with an elected official but they aren’t in session. So she was served with an order to show cause – issue licenses or go to jail. She opted for the latter.

    She didn’t abuse power as much as she failed to exercise the power she is obligated to perform. So heteros were denied their rights to a license and SS couples were denied what they are permitted under the law. And all she had to say was they are permitted under the law to have the state-implications of a marriage license.

    If our culture is going to increase the pressure on Christians we should think it through and do it right. Political tactics are not the same as a Christian response and we should understand the difference between the two. The rally – with “Eye of the Tiger” and Huck having his Al Sharpton Moment (as someone else has said) – makes it look political, although on this point I blame others more than her.

    Like

  167. Hey, I just wanna say she mocked herself for dressing and keeping herself the way she does, but, I’ll say this, her husband’s getup stole the day. I so hope his name is Jed. In fact, I’ve decided that’s his name, Jed.

    Like

  168. The clerk’s job:

    As county clerk I am responsible for providing many services to the people of Rowan county. These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting election duties and tax duties.

    Our office is here to serve the public in a friendly, professional and efficient manner. We are constantly striving to upgrade our services in order to better serve you. This website is our most recent attempt to better serve the people of Rowan county. Here you will find contact information, important forms and documents, land and legal records, and much more. Feel free to contact us via phone or fax during business hours, or use our convenient contact form and someone will get back to you as soon as possible.

    Thanks,
    Kim Davis
    Rowan County Clerk
    http://rowancountyclerk.com/

    Like

  169. Nope. Jed. Last name might be Paschall. It’s done. Jed ‘sometimes I wear a singlet when I’m feeling froggy’ Paschall.

    Like

  170. Muddy Gravel
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
    Jeff:

    “She might have gotten hyped-up from the legal firm representing her.”

    At at distance, it’s hard to say but my guess is that she got hyped up by fasting, praying, and attending apostolic worship services multiple times per week prior to the SCOTUS SSM decision. Her actions speak more of advice from fellow apostolic believers or “the leading of the Spirit” more than advice from legal counsel.
    ——————————————————

    I said:
    “And you slandered her because of her alleged religious appearance that you have seen in others. You mocked her and her religion.”

    Muddy Gravel said:
    I don’t think I did these things. Are you sure?>>>>>

    Well, Muddy Buddy, or Brother Muddy Gravel, yes you did. You mocked her religion, and no, you cannot judge from a distance.

    You may not have commented on her appearance. Others did. She looks fine. Men are such gossips. The gossip has muddied the conversation considerably.
    ——————————————————————-
    MG:
    The judge was in a tough spot. Normally the legislature would deal with an elected official but they aren’t in session. So she was served with an order to show cause – issue licenses or go to jail. She opted for the latter.>>>>>

    Why didn’t he say that the state legislature will deal with the issue next time it is in session? How many counties are there in Kentucky? All the rest of them seem to be issuing marriage licenses.

    MG:
    She didn’t abuse power as much as she failed to exercise the power she is obligated to perform. So heteros were denied their rights to a license and SS couples were denied what they are permitted under the law. And all she had to say was they are permitted under the law to have the state-implications of a marriage license.>>>>>>

    That would violate her conscience. Besides, when she was elected, the definition of marriage had not been changed by the Supreme Court of the US. She promised to uphold that law, not this.

    MG:
    If our culture is going to increase the pressure on Christians we should think it through and do it right. Political tactics are not the same as a Christian response and we should understand the difference between the two. The rally – with “Eye of the Tiger” and Huck having his Al Sharpton Moment (as someone else has said) – makes it look political, although on this point I blame others more than her.>>>>>

    How can it not be political when the Supreme Court decision has all the earmarks of a politically motivated decision? Didn’t they want to be on the right side of history or some such nonsense? Kennedy did comment on how the OBERGEFELL v. HODGES decision should not affect religious freedom, yet we know it will. The first amendment is no longer worth the paper it is written on since we now have a supreme court judge telling us that it is still okay to have our religious points of view.

    Excuse me, sir, I don’t need no stinkin’ judge to tell me that. The 1st Amendment used to tell me that, but now I am not so sure.

    It will affect the first amendment since religious people and organizations are already being pressured to accept the new definition of marriage, or else!

    It’s fine to think things through, Muddy, but what about answering the question. When is it not only justified, but also necessary to disobey unlawful laws?

    Anyway, thanks for the response, Muddy. No, this is not easy. Not easy at all. We are all in this together, though, like it or not. 🙂

    Like

  171. “When is it not only justified, but also necessary to disobey unlawful laws?”

    We should all get to disobey the law when we feel it isn’t right or it makes us uncomfortable. Are we on the same page now?

    Like

  172. Mermaid, “This judge – though I am sure he is a good man trying to do the right thing as well – made an example of Ms. Davis. This is what will happen to all the low level public servants and public employees if they do not bow down to the dictates of the federal government.”

    You shouldn’t talk that way about Roman Catholics (that’s what you tell me anyway).

    Like

  173. Muddy Gravel
    Posted September 10, 2015 at 6:06 am | Permalink
    “When is it not only justified, but also necessary to disobey unlawful laws?”

    We should all get to disobey the law when we feel it isn’t right or it makes us uncomfortable. Are we on the same page now?>>>>>

    It’s not about disobedience because we don’t feel it is right or it makes us uncomfortable. That is what the Supreme Court did – strike down laws because the laws didn’t feel loving. So who is disobeying, here? It is not a good thing at all when the Supreme Court finds a way to disobey the Constitution because of how they feel or what they had for breakfast that morning – or how much wine they drank the night before.

    What law is Ms. Davis supposed to be enforcing? There is no Kentucky law that governs marriage certificates. Remember? The Supreme Court invalidated Kentucky marriage laws.

    The Kentucky legislature is not in session, and the old laws have not been modified. Will the good judge Banning put the whole legislature in jail because they have not yet brought their state laws in line with federal court decisions?

    This is a mess, and it will be a mess for a long time to come. How do you feel about it?

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205

    Like

  174. That would violate her conscience. Besides, when she was elected, the definition of marriage had not been changed by the Supreme Court of the US. She promised to uphold that law, not this.

    So judicial decisions need to take into account the potential of violating the consciences of governmental agents whose work it is to carry out their tasks in conjunction with those decisions? And whatever the law is the moment they become said governmental agents can never change or develop in ways not previously conceived? If this isn’t how the magisterium and members of the RCC carry out their relationship then why would you expect the same from civil organizations and bodies? Or maybe you think sacred and secular bodies are governed by different principles, but 2k alert. But if so, then the civil side of your 2k seems way more influenced by modernity than the Bible.

    Like

  175. I’m not sure about the US, but in Canada the Law is made by Parliament. The Courts interpret the Law.

    Jury nullification for the crime of abortion has caused my country to have no laws to its effects for 20 years now?

    And I cannot foresee Parliament ever again writing law restricting it.

    Like

  176. Webster, your first pope addressed this. There is a time to say no to the government but is it only when we agree with the law? I’ll give you some context.
    _______________
    Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

    13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,[b] whether it be to the emperor[c] as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants[d] of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

    18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

    Like

  177. Muddy Gravel
    Posted September 10, 2015 at 11:30 am | Permalink
    Webster, your first pope addressed this. There is a time to say no to the government but is it only when we agree with the law? I’ll give you some context.>>>>

    What law is Ms. Davis disobeying? That is the context of this present thread. She is being accused of disobeying the law, and for that she was put in jail.

    The Supreme Court struck down the marriage laws of the state of Kentucky. The legislature has not met to draft new marriage laws.

    Or was the court specific about which articles it struck down and which it kept in place?

    What does a Christian do when one part of the government demand she obey, but another part has not given any laws for her to obey?

    It’s still a mess. Who is she supposed to obey? The Supreme Court doesn’t make law, it just decides according to its own criteria what law can stand and what law can be struck down.

    Besides, here in my state, the city of Seattle is a sanctuary city and the state has legalized marijuana – both of which are in violation of federal law.

    Let’s say you are a law enforcement officer in the state of WA, sworn to uphold the Constitution. If you do, will you be put in jail or threatened with losing your job? What is a Christian to do in that case?

    This is a mess.

    BTW, I would love to be subject to the laws of the land, if they would just make up their minds what is and what is not law. They are being lawless, and I don’t just mean natural law.

    …and I didn’t even mention how our state supreme court is suing the state to try to force the legislature to fully fund public schools. Yes, that is a real thing.

    At least in the dictatorship one knew what the law was. Antinomianism is not a good thing in government.

    Like

  178. Webster, the problems you describe are perpetuated and exacerbated when everyone gets to decide whether the Supreme Court is legitimate or not.

    Perpetuate, exacerbate, legitimate.Perpetuate, exacerbate, legitimate. Perpetuate, exacerbate, legitimate.

    Now you do three fun words.

    Like

  179. Muddy Gravel
    Posted September 10, 2015 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
    Webster, the problems you describe are perpetuated and exacerbated when everyone gets to decide whether the Supreme Court is legitimate or not.

    Perpetuate, exacerbate, legitimate.Perpetuate, exacerbate, legitimate. Perpetuate, exacerbate, legitimate.

    Now you do three fun words.>>>>>

    I understand, and I am glad you see there is a problem. So, when will our wonderful federal court system stop perpetuating, exacerbating, and legitimizing antinomianism in our land? Then they have the gall to pick on a nice Christian woman like Ms. Davis.

    Why don’t they come down hard on the state of Washington for its non-compliance with federal law?

    You see the problem? They thought that Ms. Davis would be an easy target. They were wrong.

    Like

  180. Webster, maybe because we have the most politicized and partisan US Attorney General in the history of the universe?

    Politicized and partisan, politicized and partisan, politicized and partisan.

    So you like Ms. Davis’ results? Be careful – what may be the best strategy to “win” one conflict today may have very different results in the long term.

    Like

  181. Muddy Gravel:
    So you like Ms. Davis’ results? Be careful – what may be the best strategy to “win” one conflict today may have very different results in the long term.>>>>

    I like Ms. Davis’ guts.

    Besides, the same can be said about the left. They may win on this, but what have they won?

    If Ms. Davis’ religious liberty and freedom of conscience is trampled on, then we all lose.

    Like

  182. Vinson Synan explains Kim Davis’ communion:

    Vinson Synan, a professor of church history at Regent University in Virginia and an expert on Pentecostalism, estimates there are 15 to 20 million Pentecostals in the United States; of those, maybe 1 million are Apostolic Pentecostals. Apostolic Pentecostals claim to have a total 25 million members worldwide, he said.

    Q: What does the “apostolic” in “Apostolic Pentecostal” mean?

    A: “Apostolic” refers to the apostles, the earliest followers of Jesus who were sent out to spread the Christian faith. In this case, it comes from Apostolic Pentecostals’ beliefs about baptism. Apostolic Pentecostals baptize believers in the name of Jesus. Other Christians baptize newly converted Christians in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    Q: Isn’t this just splitting hairs?

    A: All this quibbling about whether the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons or three titles for one person and which ones Christians name-check when they baptize new believers sounds pretty minor, right? But it’s kind of a big deal. The doctrine of the Trinity, Synan said, “goes to the very heart of the Bible and the Christian Gospel — the very idea of the Godhead.”

    Q: OK, well, what’s with the long hair and skirts?

    A: Apostolic Pentecostals are the strictest of all the Pentecostal groups, according to Synan. Like most Pentecostals, they do not use alcohol or tobacco. They generally don’t watch TV or movies either. Women who are Apostolic Pentecostals also wear long dresses, and they don’t cut their hair or wear makeup. It’s called “external holiness,” he said, and it’s meant to separate its followers from the rest of the world in the way they look and act — although, he noted, men who are Apostolic Pentecostals look “like everybody else.”

    Q: So what does all this have to do with same-sex marriage and Kim Davis?

    A: The general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International, the largest and most influential Apostolic Pentecostal denomination, issued a statement earlier this year in response to the Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriages. In his statement, he defines God’s plan for marriage as “the union of one man and one woman who make a lifelong commitment,” and encourages Christians to “defend the freedoms of speech, press, association, and religion.”

    In a statement released Sept. 1, Davis affirmed that definition as “a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage.”

    Like

  183. Huffington Post, more dirty tricks, ho hum.Only Kim Davis’ detractors and enemies give a damn about this “expose” of her church’s theology. Typical slime.

    Jews don’t believe Jesus was divine either. So what? This is about Biblical morality, religious freedom, and the guts to stand up for both–noticeably lacking in her detractors.

    Like

  184. How priests treat Protestants:

    Kim Davis is an innocent victim both of cowardice of churchmen and the smug eagerness of certain priests to put her in her place.

    First, a few largely uncontested facts: it was Vatican personnel who invited Davis to meet the pope in Washington DC. Neither Kim Davis nor anyone connected to her requested the meeting.

    What’s more, Kim Davis met privately with the pope. Whether you call it an audience or an encounter or any other thing, it took place in private. To put an even finer point on it, she was not on a rope line to shake his passing hand, neither was she in a line of people to meet him one by one.

    Lastly, while Vatican personnel wanted the meeting to be private, Davis was told at the meeting, the secrecy of the meeting was to last only until the pope left the country.

    After the news of the meeting broke the gay mafia inside and outside the Church went berserk. It was remarkable to them that the pope would meet with someone so unclean as Kim Davis, her of the countrified hair, clothes and accent: Davis of the bigoted views. Certainly, they thought, our who-am-I-to-judge pontiff would never support someone so odiferous. Impossible!

    Within hours Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi S.J. issued a highly nuanced do-se-do. He said the pope did not discuss the particulars of her case. Fine, Davis never claimed that he did. Lombardi said the pope did not necessarily support her position in all its particulars and complexities. Fine, no one would expect him to. Lombardi said there were dozens of people in the Nunciature at that time waiting to bid the pope farewell. Sort of fine. While he did not put her among them, the press dutifully inferred she was not alone but among the throng.

    While Lombardi’s statement was regrettable, while misleading, none of it was inaccurate. However, other unidentified voices came forward from within the Church bureaucracy. One said the pope was ambushed. Yet another anonymous brave heart said there was “regret” in the Holy See that the encounter took place. One single person connected to the Holy See cozied up to his media friend and together they made it sound like the entire College of Cardinals had pronounced on the Kim Davis visit.

    And then a priest named Thomas Rosica pronounced for the pope. Rosica, who is English language spokesman for the Vatican Press Office, promptly went way out over his skis. Where his boss Lombardi said a few dozen people were in the Nunciature that day, Rosica actually put Davis among them. This is either a deliberate falsehood or Rosica was misinformed or he was simply overeager in his desire to put Davis in her place. In his most revealing utterance, Rosica referred to her as “this person.” Did he think uttering her name would make him unclean?

    Rosica has a long record of warring with those he disagrees. A few months ago he tried to bully a Canadian blogger who had criticized him. Through high-priced lawyers Rosica threatened the blogger with a costly lawsuit. When a Canadian priest sued LifeSite News for reporting—accurately—that he was pro-abortion, Rosica cheered on the suit.

    Rosica was not the only priest eager to stomp on Kim Davis.

    Even before the controversial meeting, professional wit James Martin S.J. tweeted something about her hypocrisy in allowing for certificates of divorce through her office. He said her opposition to same-sex “marriage” rang hollow since Jesus was explicit on divorce.

    When the pope’s visit with Davis was announced, he published one of those oh-so-thoughtful chin-scratching shivs between the ribs. He said the Pope’s meeting with actor Mark Wahlberg didn’t mean he endorsed the movie “Ted.” Clever and endlessly quoted but quite false because the pope actually does endorse Davis’s “Ted,” that is, he supports conscientious objection to gay marriage by government officials.

    And then Martin tweeted his endorsement of a Daily Beast hit-piece on Davis’s lawyers that repeats the vicious slander that they are a “hate group” not unlike the Aryan Brotherhood. Martin should know that his Church holds the same views on homosexuality that landed Davis’s lawyers on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate list.

    How is it that churchmen in general and these two celebrity priests in particular are so enamored of the 1.6 percent who are same-sex attracted and that they would so eagerly and even gleefully insult millions of Christians who are scandalized by the manhandling of a good woman by Catholic priests? It beggars belief, except when you consider the gay mafia. I am not suggesting or even remotely implying that either Martin or Rosica are gay, but they do seem to be abundantly sympathetic to the cause.

    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