Hijacking The Government: What Franklin Graham Is Wrong About Today

Hijacking The Government: What Franklin Graham Is Wrong About Today September 2, 2015

Fear and hopelessness.

In what will be a surprise to no one, Franklin Graham has come out in strong support of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses because of her “deeply held beliefs” against same sex marriage. She has fought through every legal avenue, and lost. Now she will likely face contempt of court charges that could lead to some harsh financial penalties or eventually jail time.

Franklin Graham took to Facebook and said the following:

“I’m thankful and proud that Americans are standing up against the evil being forced on us. Our religious rights and freedoms are being trampled on. Clerk of Court Kim Davis in Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples and defied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. She said, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience…For me it is a decision of obedience…It’s a matter of religious liberty.” Kim has received death threats from people she doesn’t even know, and she has to appear in court on Thursday over a motion to hold her in contempt. We need more Americans who are willing to take a stand for religious freedoms and biblical values in our communities. If we don’t, we won’t even recognize the America that our children and our grandchildren will be left with. Pray for Kim Davis and for our nation today.”

Of course, this is what Franklin Graham is wrong about today, and I’ll be happy to explain why.

First, evil is not being forced upon Kim Davis. It is her religious belief that same sex marriage is wrong, and she’s entitled to that belief. No one is forcing her to divorce her 4th husband and marry a woman– that would be an obvious violation of her religious liberty. But doing her job as a clerk of the court? This has nothing to do with religious liberty.

Let’s say, for argument sake, that same sex marriage is a sin. Scripture commands us to conform ourselves into the image and likeness of Christ, so Ms. Davis should be focused on conforming herself into her religious convictions. In this particular case, to be true to her religious convictions, she should remain married to her husband and not marry a woman.

That’s religious freedom, and what should be her focus as a Christian.

This particular case however, isn’t about Ms. Davis being free to practice her religion and it isn’t about having the freedom to conform into the image and likeness of Christ. Instead, this is about Ms. Davis’s attempt to force her religious restrictions on the general public and an attempt to conform the secular government into the image and likeness of Christ (or her version thereof). 

And this is why she and Franklin are wrong, even if their theology were somehow proven to be right. Nowhere in the New Testament does it tell us we are to take control of government and shape it to look like Jesus. Jesus never advocates taking political power, or using the power of government to build the Kingdom of God. Never.

In fact, we’re actually called to come out from it and be separate– living in and building Jesus’s other-worldly Kingdom as immigrants far away from home.

Ms. Davis has essentially hijacked a portion of the government and is now using that arm of government– not in an attempt to live out her religious convictions– but to force those convictions on other people. If a person from any other religious tradition were to do this, Franklin Graham would be pitching a fit.

What about a Muslim government official who were to deny a building permit for a pig farmer, on the basis of their religious conviction?

What about an Anabaptist who would refuse to issue concealed carry permits since violence is against our beliefs?

What about an Amish city official who would refuse to allow anyone to register a car in his or her county?

Brainstorm a bit, and you can see how crazy this could get. In any other scenario both Franklin and Davis would see such behavior as a violation of rights, not an upholding of them. In each and every circumstance I guarantee these individuals would argue such a person should be removed from their government role.

Every person in America has the freedom to practice their religion. However, we do not have blanket freedom to step into a government role and force that arm of government, no matter how small, to conform to our own religious beliefs.

That’s not what the Bible teaches us to do. We are told to mold ourselves after Jesus– but are never told to hijack the government and force the government to conform to Jesus. Instead, we’re simply to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to be obedient to the authorities as we quietly labor at building the Kingdom of God.

Which means ironically, Ms. Davis is rebelling against the teachings of scripture and example of Jesus, instead of upholding them.

However, Franklin Graham is officially supporting this rebellious, sinful behavior– and that’s what he’s wrong about today.

"The class war is over. Spoiler: The rich people won."

10 Signs You’re Actually Following TRUMPianity ..."
"And you're arguing that they're not ? Do their bodies and clothes not get tainted ..."

10 Reasons Christians Should Affirm Women ..."
"Though down-votes are always appreciated, they usually serve as poor substitutes for (counter)arguments (or, rather, ..."

10 Reasons Christians Should Affirm Women ..."
"Your assumption that more people are engaging in biblical scholarship is flawed. Fewer people engage ..."

5 Reasons Why More Christians Are ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Pamela Parker Ricer

    Thank you, Ben

  • Stacey (the kids’ Aunt Tasty)

    I’m still wondering what part of Romans 13.1 is not clear to Ms. Davis and Mr. Graham.

  • Josh Sara Botts

    Why is this so difficult for some folks to understand? I don’t believe that Ms. Davis or Franklin Graham are necessarily evil, I just think they’re scared and confused. People like this seem to think they have God all figured out, and anything the falls outside of their “God box” scares the hell out of them. I don’t know, I guess we just need to make sure to pray for folks like Ms. Davis that the scandalous love of Christ will break through into their narrow minds and heal their hearts. Just like I need him to do for me.

  • Jordan

    Be cautious of invoking Romans 13. A face-value reading of Romans 13 implies that any government employee who uses the “I was just following orders” to justify his actions is innocent of any wrongdoing. A Nazi killing Jews is nowhere near issuing a marriage license, but the moral reasoning is exactly the same. We can disagree with Ms. Davis, but accusing her of not obeying God because she’s not obeying the state is a slippery slope into waters none of would tread.

    All that being said, Ms. Davis and Rev. Graham would probably claim to take Romans 13 at face value. That puts them in a biblical pickle.

  • otrotierra

    Imagine how offended Kim Davis will be when she hears about Jesus and The Greatest Commandment. She won’t hear it from Franklin Graham, who’s simply too far away enjoying his political alliances and riches on Planet Kolob.

  • I personally don’t even get to the “forcing others to conform to my beliefs” step before I run into problems; I’m stuck on “expecting to keep a job while refusing to do the job.” Imagine if a hardcore pacifist, someone who not only refuses to personally enact violence but also refuses to support others who are violent, enlisted in the Army. This person’s sincerely held convictions (which for the sake of consistency we’ll say are religious in nature) completely prevent him from doing the job. Would the people who support Ms. Davis in this also support my theoretical absolute pacifist in his right to have a job in the Army while absolutely refusing to do his job?

  • Gabriel Cody

    Two recent cases illustrate the utter confusion people have in determining the propriety of some people discriminating against persons who are members of categories grounded in what civil rights attorneys call “suspect bases of classification.” When, and to whom, does the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment apply? When a privately owned bakery in Oregon refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, an administrative agency came down upon the business with heavy fines. That the bakery should have had its refusal legally respected is grounded in the simple fact that, being a private business, it is not engaged in the “state action” that is a prerequisite for an “equal protection” analysis. If private parties are not free to select those with whom to associate or share in their property, there is no substance to personal liberty.

    By contrast, the county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the grounds that to do so would violate her religious principles, is – by virtue of her acting as an official of the state – in violation of the First Amendment prohibition of establishing a state religion.

    It is the essence of a society based on respect privately owned property that individuals may act – or refuse to act – with others on any basis they choose. No matter how intolerant a bakery owner may be in refusing to contract with any category of other persons, the property principle protects their right to so discriminate. This is not the case where the person claiming such a right of refusal is an agent of the state, discriminating on grounds prohibited to the state.

    Butler Shaffer

  • Gabriel Cody

    The Romans 13 argument is often used to justify wars of any kind regardless of “collateral” damages. I’m sure Ms. Davis and Franklin Graham would both advocate this argument to defend any “hero” fighting for our government. I guess it’s ok to follow orders toward violence but not towards issuing marriage certificates.

  • PinkyAndNoBrain

    “Some people’s faith is like a trampoline — it bends and flexes and moves . . . for others, their faith is like a wall of bricks — pull one out to examine it, and the whole thing becomes unstable and threatens to crumble . . . for him, faith isn’t a trampoline; it’s a wall of bricks. Each of the core doctrines for him is like an individual brick that stacks on top of the others. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble. It appears quite strong and rigid, but if you begin to rethink or discuss even one brick, the whole thing is in danger.” — Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis

    Don’t have anything to add; just thought this seemed very appropriate.

  • peterhamm

    Let’s not forget also… by forcing her office to comply with her religious convictions, is she not causing the government to establish religion… a REALLY clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

    This woman SO needs a new job.

  • Jonathan

    Associated Press
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    6-11-63
    In what will be a surprise to no one, Franklin Graham has come out in strong support of Gov. George Wallace, the Alabama politician who is refusing to allow the integration of the State’s charter University because of his “deeply held beliefs” against associating with Negroes. He has fought through every legal avenue, and lost. Now he will likely face contempt of court charges that could lead to some harsh financial penalties or eventually jail time.

  • Using logic with The Scripture get Nowhere.
    If, your standard Christian is the one ho Obeys the State Obeys Jesus. Then Way The 12 Disciples Doesn’t Obey to the Order of Stop Declaring that Jesus Is the Christ. Why? Because First I Must Obey Jesus Then the Authority of the Man…

    And jail time is nothing To the Mighty Power of Jesus, and the Ones ho stand Firm and belive in Miracles. Dont Forget Daniel. Peace.

    Yes the more Logic thing to do is Look for another Job.
    But If Jesus told her to Stand Still and Dont Look For another Job.
    Then Some thing Big is Coming… I like to See. Wath Happend Next.

  • Herm

    Christ
    Anointed, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word rendered “Messiah” (q.v.), the official title of our Lord, occurring five hundred and fourteen times in the New Testament. It denotes that he was anointed or consecrated to his great redemptive work as Prophet, Priest, and King of his people.
    Illustrated Bible Dictionary: And Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature.

    According to Mr. Graham’s bible could not Jesus have asked our Father that He might take the throne from the high priest and Rome to institute His law as He knew it to truly be good for all? Why did He, instead, so passively fulfill our Father’s will to the cross to abide by the law of the land that would even crucify God they did not recognize? Who is Kim Davis and Franklin Graham to usurp the will of our Father when our truly Anointed would not?

    Each are making news worldwide but for Christians and the world it isn’t the Gospel.

  • GK

    We all have the “right” to our convictions, but like followers of Christ down through the ages, we need to be prepared to suffer the consequences of those convictions. To be a true follower of Christ is to be just that. He gave up His life…Screaming about convictions all the while screaming about rights and job security shows me where the heart really is.

  • Fartrell Cluggins

    Also, separation of Church and State…

  • Personally I’m enjoying this. There’s a false narrative that’s long been built up by the anti-LGBT ‘non-affirming,’ ‘side B’ Christian monolith. That is, namely, that while they disapprove of homosexuality and its manifestations, they treat LGBT people with the same love and respect they would any other sinful person.

    People like Davis, of course, are a knife into the heart of the narrative. Davis’s hypocrisy and clear anti-LGBT animus are on full display and cannot be brushed away with false claims of loving others. For years Christians have been trying to hide their bigotries behind soft veils of proclaimed love, and it’s not working any more.

    I’m glad. I’m grateful for people like Davis. It forces people to recognise that the divide between the LGBT community and the Christian Church at large is not only necessary, but beneficial.

  • Jon-Michael Ivey

    It would be violating her rights to make her do her job if it were impossible to resign, but it is no violation to fire her for not performing the tasks it involves.

    There is however a procedural complication, in that her office is elected and not appointed. That means she does not have a boss who can fire her for not doing the job.If she won’t resign, the legislature would have to impeach her. She might be betting on the bigotry of her constituents to make that politically unfeasible, so that she can keep getting paid without working.

    I do consider it to be a violation of her rights to be held in contempt of court too though. Seriously, the power that the common law allows judges is completely out of control. They can imprison innocent persons for life without charging them with any crime, for no reason other than feeling that they are not being treated with enough respect due to their office. It almost never gets that far as most people will submit within a few days at the most, but Judges very often are power mad and demand more respect than they deserve. Many courts deserve to be held in contempt.

  • alwayspuzzled

    I don’t understand why we equate Graham and Davis. Graham, the Liberty Counsel, and the other godly leaders against equality are the real predators here. We can criticize her for being a willing pawn. But she has everything to lose, and the godly hypocrites have everything to gain. They don’t give a damn about her personal religious freedoms. All they are doing is manipulating her and building up her image as a martyr for the cause. When she crashes, which she certainly will, the godly hypocrites will be ready and waiting to use her (probably deserved) misfortune to inflame their followers and fatten their bank accounts. If we demonize her, we are as much in their trap as she is. She is low-hanging fruit, nothing more.

  • Stacey (the kids’ Aunt Tasty)

    I hear ya.

  • Stacey (the kids’ Aunt Tasty)

    Acknowledging your voice, sir.

  • Cat lover

    She is elected, right? Can a petition be started for a recall?

  • Maura Hart

    she’s been married 4 times. divorced 3 times. had her twins by her 2nd husband born during her marriage to her 3rd husband. wtf>>?????????????????????????? she is a hypocritical christian. a hypocrist and franklin graham is just a grifter making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ because of his dad. simple.

  • Maura Hart

    godly leaders? godly????? in what way are they christlike? in what way are they godly?

  • otrotierra

    Yes, Kim Davis’s three divorces will naturally be a concern for frothing fundamentalists, as Jesus remained silent on same-sex marriage but was undeniably clear about his stance against divorce.

  • Maura Hart

    i think the only thing franklin graham is scared of is losing his million dollar a year job and the only thing that confuses him is why is he not as loved as his father was

  • Alan Christensen

    I imagine so, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about so my guess is they wouldn’t get the votes. Of course there may be a fair number of people pissed off that’s she’s not issuing any marriage licenses.

  • alwayspuzzled

    I’m sorry if my wording was misleading. I used “godly” to refer to what kind of person they pretend to be, not what kind of person they really are. I apologize.

  • As a former member of the armed forces I can speak to that: if someone simply refused to do their job they’d be in a world of hurt by day’s end. Military commanders have a million ways to “compel” you to do what you’re told.

  • There have been a handful of incidents where “conscientious objectors” have tried just this, and the religious Right’s response has been frothing wrath.

  • Yep, that’s pretty much exactly what I’d’ve expected. And as Phil’s suggesting, the people who are supporting Ms. Davis would probably be 100% on the side of the commanders doing the “compelling.”

  • Don Lowery

    No one is forcing her to divorce her 4th husband and marry a woman

    Very true…but if she’s so darn concerned about God’s definition of marriage…she needs to force her current husband to get at least three other sister-wives and get down to that court house to get married in the way the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible tells her.

    What about an Amish city official who would refuse to allow anyone to register a car in his or her county?

    This struck me as weird…but you never know. Thought it was against Amish/some Anabaptist beliefs to hold any type of public office or even vote? Personally…I don’t vote or do the pledge anymore…but if you want the headaches of public office…knock yourself out.

  • Don Lowery

    Not a concern at all. Look at how many fundamentalists and their church leaders have no problem with divorce. Just like this lady…the only thing holding them back are state laws on the number of times they can get married. From what I understand…Oklahoma has a limit of five marriages. How that’s enforced…especially from another state…I have no idea.

  • Key

    The simplest solution for her, if she thinks that her job requires her to act against her conscience and religious convictions, is merely to quit. A solution like that wouldn’t let her play attention-seeking wannabe martyr, though.

  • Don Lowery

    Nothing about her being jailed is a violation of her rights. As an elected official who has decided to “roll the dice” that she will not be jailed or fined…it’s a very risky game she’s playing to bet that the same government who has jailed whistleblowers for exposing the truth won’t do the same to her. She keeps this up to the wrong judge or court…she will living out “Orange is the New Black” for a very long time until she complies with the order of the court. Chances are…if she ends up in jail…she’ll be held for the time for her elected office to be filled by someone who will follow the law in the next election. If she has several years left of her office and is held until after the next election…she’s got many years of tears/reflection/lost life/long gone husband to look forward to not doing her job.

  • Jon-Michael Ivey

    I might not mind this particular use of contempt of court very much, but in principle still hold that it is an unjust power that should be abolished. Judges should be able to throw someone out of their courtrooms if they are causing too much of a disturbance, but imprisoning someone who is not even charged of a crime is not acceptable. It is the most tyrannical privilege possessed by anyone in our system of government.

  • otrotierra

    But Don, the evangelical divorce rate in Kentucky should be a solid 0% since they’re so concerned about upholding “biblical standards.” Hmmm….

  • Lark62

    As i understand it, Davis was married to husband #1, when she conceived twins whose father would become husband #3. Meanwhile, they were adopted by husband #2.

    Christian marriage.

  • Lark62

    When one owns a business, they have to comply with laws.

    We as a society have decided that certain forms of discrimination are not acceptable. We tried Jim Crow and we learned that the price is too high. Thus, a business cannot refuse to serve a customer based on race. A business cannot refuse to serve handicapped customers. In states that prohibit discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, that’s the law.

    Businesses can choose their product, but must serve all customers, especially those classes protected by law.

    And the fine against the Oregon bakers was so high due to the harm they caused by posting their private info on Facebook.

  • Lark62

    Would she have this level of support if jesus told her not to issue concealed carry permits or hunting licenses?

  • Don Lowery

    Mmmm…Kentucky. Used to have a former roommate who served in Vietnam. Used to tell me what he called a true story about someone from there who was a farm boy. Ended the story by telling me that Kentucky was the place where men are men and sheep are scared.
    As for the firm 0%…you can say the same thing about the rest of the Bible Noose region. Grew up in Oklahoma and those Okie’s love their common-law marriage and shacking up. Used to believe that the flower children were the reason for the “moral decay” America…but the Bible Noose had to have taught the flower children how to do it right.

  • svizzerams

    What I am finding a little bit hopeful is that in following along on Franklin’s FB feed on this topic that there is quite a bit of sentiment that is condemning the actions of Kim Davis, and not supporting Franklin’s position. To be honest, when the post first appeared this morning I’d have not anticipated that. That is generally not the case – not many dissenting opinions appear but this time…wow.

  • Matthew

    What if she has repented and asked forgiveness for past sins? Why cast a stone without complete information?

  • Matthew

    She should simply find another job that doesn´t conflict with her strongly held convictions.

  • Key

    Because forgiveness by God doesn’t prevent her from receiving the consequences of her actions – in this case, being called a hypocrite. Regardless of whether or not she has been forgiven by God, she appears to be living in what her own particular subtype of Christianity would tend to label a “state of sin.” It’s the old mote and log in the eye thing, even if you think homosexuality is a sin.

    I do hope that she has asked for forgiveness for her sins, but she still seems to be unrepentantly abusing her office to harm others, so I think it’s unlikely to have happened completely.

  • While I sympathise with the call to obey government, clearly there’s a competing claim: to obey Jesus. Sometimes, these claims clash. To reduce the debate down to the goodness of conforming yourself to Christ vs the wrongness of conforming culture to Christ is not helpful.

    Consider an obvious example, clearly more much more extreme than this – obeying the government of Nazi Germany to kill Jews. Are we to obey the government and kill, out of supposed obedience to Christ? Clearly not. So there’s a time and place for civil disobedience.

    Now same-sex marriage licences may not be so clear as that example, but the question must be raised: at what point do we disobey government?

  • Matthew

    I´m not certain what her brand of Christianity teaches regarding divorce and remarriage (I believe she classifies herself as an apostolic Christian). I suppose I need to use Google today :-).

  • Tim

    I believe the point Benjamin is making is that we need to be clear about what a violation of religious freedom actually is. I don’t think he’s advocating that we just obey government willy-nilly regardless of what they do.

  • Vince

    Here’s the thing… if her heart, mind, and soul is good with God, than allowing couples to have what is lawfully their’s shouldn’t be a problem. How many laws are out there that prevent a person of faith to live as openly, and freely as they would like to? How many laws are out there that allow any of us to openly reject them because we have a different moral leaning which opposes that specific law? If I receive a call from my wife telling me one of my children were in an accident, and I decide to do 90 mph on the highway to get home to them as quickly as possible, do my individual circumstances change the fact that I am still breaking the law? And even if an officer decided to not give me a ticket out of compassion, it would come with a warning to maintain the speed limit, despite that I want so desperately to get home. This woman is on a power trip… and she’s taking that trip on the taxpayers dollars. Though there is more to the passage I’m about to share, I think it points to how Jesus transformed the old laws by still respecting them yet showing there deeper meaning (as when he told the religious leaders to cast the first stone.) I believe he does the same thing here in Matthew 22: 15-22

    Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

    But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

    “Caesar’s,” they replied.

    Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    Kim Davis… you can give marriage licenses as the law has required you to do, and still give to God what is God’s.

  • Well, if the Nazis allowed any of their soldiers to quit at any time and go do something else, that might have been a good first start.

    I mean, that’s what makes this different than government oppression. It’s not like the government is forcing her to be a County Clerk.

  • Well surely not being able to hold to your deeply held religious conviction about same-sex relationships is about religious freedom. Benjamin appears to be saying that that would be a personal thing, and should not affect our public life – which seems exactly like a religious conviction that murder is wrong yet we should keep that personal and not let orders to kill affect us.

  • mrbigstuff

    Graham is never right about anything he learned from his Dad how to get money from likeminded rubes telling them what they want to hear keeping them in fear and closeminded next to Huckabuck,Graham would be the last person I would ask about Religion

  • Maura Hart

    repentance means change right? in what way has she changed? and most importantly she is throwing the first metaphorical stone with the words her conscience is the only law she follows. does she obey the speed limit ? she is holding herself up above the rest of everyone else which of course is very christ like. ooops. its actually not. plus aren’t we supposed to render untoo caesar?

  • Maura Hart

    and the abortion rate and unplanned pregnancy rate should be zero as well.

  • Matthew

    I don´t know her complete story, I don´t know in what ways she has changed (if indeed she has changed), and I think it becomes child´s play when we start saying things like “Wait a minute … she threw the first stone!”

    I suppose my overall point is that we are all often too quick to judge others — on both sides of the fence that is — with all too often limited information.

  • gimpi1

    What is with the random initial capitalizations? It makes this hard to read.

    It also doesn’t make any sense to me, but it took me longer than usual to get to that conclusion, because of the weird caps and misspellings….

  • gimpi1

    I would say when the consequences of your actions can’t be easily fixed.

    You don’t obey a random order to kill people or cause them harm, because you can’t fix dead, and while those falsely imprisoned are usually paid a large sum when the error is acknowledged, it really doesn’t make up for the time stolen. I wouldn’t obey an order to round a group of people up to be imprisoned or relocated, to discriminate against or harass a group or to (heaven forbid) kill some group of people, since the damage I would do can’t be repaired if (when) it comes to light that it was totally the wrong thing to do.

    However, issuing a license of any sort doesn’t do any harm to anyone. If, in the fullness of time your views prevail (not likely in the case of marriage equity), the incorrectly issued licenses can be voided. No one has been really hurt in a way that can’t be fixed or compensated for.

    Of course, I’m something of an outsider here. So, I guess that’s the view from the outside.

  • Tim

    Holding a religious conviction about same sex relationships and forcing others into it are two different things. I don’t understand how people don’t see this.

  • Nobody is saying that she must obey the government; what we are saying is that she should either do her job or quit and find a new one. If she does not feel that she can perform the duties of her government job, she should not hold that government job. So substantially less like “obeying the government of Nazi Germany to kill Jews” and a bit more like “not wanting to kill Jews but still expecting to be a part of the SS.” Still not a great example, but at least closer to what’s going on here.

  • Ron McPherson

    On what grounds is the clerk basing her refusal to comply? Christian convictions from the Bible? If so, I wonder if this same lady has refused to issue marriage licenses to those who have been divorced? Does she refuse to issue marriage licenses to those who might be unequally yoked where one is a believer and the other isn’t. If not, then her claim lacks validity.

    If this lady’s convictions are so important to her, why is she continuing to stay in office? She apparently has no trouble defying Caesar, but still takes Caesar’s money. No one is forcing this lady to do anything. If she disagrees with the government, then resign from office.

    And the world laughs.

  • Shannen Parsaca

    I have to disagree. An elected official is sworn in. The make a promise to uphold the law. At this time the law states that it is legal for a same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license and it is her job as the County Clerk to follow that law without prejudice. When a County Clerk refuses to follow the law they are actually breaking the law. A judge throwing a County Clerk into jail for contempt is very fair. If the judge didn’t find her contempt, then the judge could be held in contempt. It’s all about following the law as an elected official.

  • Tulse

    I wonder if this same lady has refused to issue marriage licenses to those who have been divorced?

    I very much doubt it, since she herself has been divorced three times.

  • Snooterpoot

    The owner of this business put the couple’s address on his facebook page. They got death threats and they were in fear of losing their children. There were other threatening acts as well.

    The $135,000 assessed against this bigot was damages awarded to the couple who suffered because of this man’s bigotry.

  • Gloria

    I will disobey the government, any government, when they specifically tell me to stop worshiping Jesus as God. I will stand up for people who are being persecuted or oppressed because of their witness for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    That is my line for disobeying the government or being outspoken. Anything else might fall under 1 Peter 4:15.

  • Cindy Temple

    A divide… hmm. If the Christian Church side of that division happens to be right… its indeed an act of Love on their part to notify those on other side of the divide that the sky is about to fall on them. Kind of like letting my kids get away with .. undesirable things.. and suffer only to hear them say : mom why didn’t you tell me!

  • otrotierra

    Thanks Shannen. A helpful clarification of the facts, no matter how politically unpopular they are.

  • This is not what’s happening. There is absolutely nothing loving about the Church’s relationship worth the LGBT community.

  • Cindy Temple

    I guess it depends on your circle.

  • Cindy Temple

    Everybody certainly has their story and sticking to it. Wonder what would happen if Google suddenly imposed a mandatory rule to post an ad at the top of every blog saying ‘take the mark of the beast here” or your blog is trashed.

  • otrotierra

    Or, instead of your silly 666 Google fantasies, you could just follow Jesus and The Greatest Commandment. I’ll stick with Jesus.

  • Cindy Temple

    So you are saying you would allow the ad on your blog. Or not.

  • otrotierra

    No Cindy, I’m saying your “Google of the Beast” fantasy 1) is silly, 2) is of no relevance to Kim Davis’ sad misunderstanding of the law, of justice, and of the Gospel of Jesus, and 3) has nothing to do with following what Jesus actually taught.

    I’m not interested in silly doomsday Google/Left Behind/dispensationalist boogeyman fantasies. I’m interested in what Jesus actually said and did in history. That’s what I’m saying.

  • otrotierra

    It depends not upon a social circle, but upon material realities of lived experience. In other words, it depends upon the facts.

  • Matthew

    I am trying to keep up with this story. I just learned yesterday that she has only been a Christian for 4 years. Apparently her divorces and marriages occurred before she was a believer. If this is accurate information, then we shouldn´t be too quick to call her a hypocrite regardless of what we may think about her newly found convictions.

  • Robin

    I spend a-lot of time in Kentucky as it is my husband’s home state and the home of all of my in-laws and least in the 21st century there are not a-lot of sheep to be seen. Horse’s? Yes. Cows? sure. Pig and chicken operations? You betcha, but its not a big wool state and its not just my intuition talking the American Sheep Industry Association lists KY s the 29th state for sheep count in 2015 three states under OK. You’d better check your stereotypes. Kentucky is more famous for bare feet, coveralls with no shirts, extended family property feuds and a shortage of teeth, and that I have seen.

  • Nick Winters

    Except her conversion should have annulled her current marriage under her own faith. As I understand said faith, by the teachings of Jesus, once you are married, (whether in a religious context or not), that’s it. All other marriages are illegitimate. So when she converted, she should have called it quits with this marriage and reunited with her first husband.

    Of course, this is ridiculous to ask of anyone, but it highlights her hypocrisy. She is living in sin by continuing in her current marriage, by orthodox Christian standards. It’s not her past actions that make her a hypocrite; it’s that she’s currently married to someone who is not her first husband.

  • Nick Winters

    To be loving, an action has to be understood and received as such by the other party. This is why stalking is not loving, though one party thinks it is. Thus while you may think your intentions are loving, your actions are not UNLESS they are received as such.

    For your own good, while legitimate in many contexts, does not make the action loving. It merely makes it justified.

  • Robin

    I think it depends on how you define love. It sounds to me like your version of love has space for coercion.

  • liberalinlove

    What do you think Jesus would do?

  • cecilia

    You have good points there.
    What really annoys me is that she is TAKING money (salary) for a job she refuses to do. Isn’t that unethical? Isn’t that stealing? It sure is unprofessional. You don’t have to be christian to see her behavior is very Unchristian.

    She can just quit this job and get another if it’s too stressful for her

  • cecilia

    she can repent until the cows come home, that doesn’t mean I have to forgive her. Especially when she behaves like a hypocrite.

    she is taking away other citizens civil rights. She doesn’t have that right

  • Robert Conner

    Paul summed it up best: “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.” (1 Corinthians 4:20)

    Pentecostal Kim Davis and Baptist Franklin Graham want the same thing: the power to impose their Bronze Age beliefs on society, i.e., a Christian sharia. Christianity, like the other “religions of the book,” is totalitarian to the core. Believe as we believe, do as we do, or die.

    “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.” (Luke 19:27)

    Christianity’s Roman critics identified it as moralizing, anti-social, and ultimately treasonous. Christians flaunted the authority of the state. Ultimately, the Romans were right:

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/269575794/Christianity-s-Critics-The-Romans-Meet-Jesus-by-Robert-Conner

  • Robert Conner

    Read any Christian blog and discover that all Christians are “cafeteria” Christians. They read their books selectively, pick and choose what they accept and ignore the rest. The Roman critics of the Jesus movement picked up on that very quickly; they realized there was no single Christianity from the very beginning. By the 2nd century Christianity had already spawned dozens of named factions and, like today, an uncountable number of idiosyncratic, solipsistic interpretations.

    More here:

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/269575794/Christianity-s-Critics-The-Romans-Meet-Jesus-by-Robert-Conner

  • Robert Conner

    While married to #1 she was pregnant by #3 whose kids were adopted by #2. “Confusion” is Father’s Day over at Kim Davis’ place.

  • Was it here on Ben’s blog, or somewhere else? I read somewhere fairly recently a discussion on the Sermon on the Mount and being salt and light (particularly that bit about “let your light shine so that they may see it and glorify God”). Ultimately, the punchline was this: according to the words that Jesus said, and which he said quite clearly, love is easily recognized as such by everybody, even the people who don’t share your dogmas. If the only way for a person to recognize an act as loving is by first completely converting their worldview to match yours, then the act was not loving.

    …which is just a long way of saying that you hit the nail squarely on the head. :-P

  • Don Lowery

    When I used to live the Laughlin, NV area…the #1 pick-up line in the area was “What a nice tooth you got”.

    Truth…when one of the big box hardware stores opened in this town across from Laughlin…over 90% of the first round of applicants could not pass the drug test. Yes…that figure was right…especially since I was at the radio stations in the area and this was talked about in some meetings with business owners wanting to buy advertising.

  • Ron McPherson

    I think where professed Christ followers (of which I am one) get in a fix is when our actions and/or words scream hypocrisy. Jesus battled it over and over from the religious leaders and had plenty to say about. Sadly, Christians (and I’m preaching to myself here) often demonstrate a poor reflection of the one we claim to worship because we tend to focus on everything but Jesus’ greatest commandments (which is to love God and people).

  • mintap

    He wrote, “evil is being forced on us” i.e., all of society, not just an individual like Kim Davis.

    A society-wide ban on setting apart the male-female union is an evil that is forced on all of us. It is not the children’s fault that they all originate through the male-female union. Why violate their right to it?

    Just as how civil rights protestors stood up against the evil of segregation that was being forced on us, Kim Davis did the same. She is a modern day Rosa Parks. She kept her seat on the bus and now is being thrown in prison.

    Were people like Parks or MLK justified in imposing their “religious restrictions on the general public?”

  • Robert Conner

    Hypocrisy is a big part of it–as I’ve said elsewhere, the new definition of “confusion” is Father’s Day over at the Davis place. Take George Rekers, co-founder of the anti-gay Family Research Council, caught at an airport with a rent boy. In fact, take him anywhere far away and leave him there.

    The other part’s the pure grifting, the opportunistic woe-is-us money begging. HuckyBooBoo, who will never be president of anything, now has Davis up on his website conveniently placed next to the “donate” button. Lucian mocked the religious grifter Peregrinus, nicknamed “Proteus” because he changed doctrines so frequently, who switched to Christianity and got himself thrown in jail long enough to cash in. The shysters of the Roman Empire quickly figured Christianity for a GoFundMe racket. The writer of the Didache warned of the itinerant “Christ mongers” (christemporoi) who settled like flies on the Christian movement.

    What I find ironic is that Christians, including the “fair and balanced” media, scold the “radical atheists” like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or people like me, when it’s the hundred percenters among evangelicals and international criminal conspiracies like the Catholic Church that are driving thinking people in droves from the pews. After all, “radical atheists” haven’t had to spend $3 trillion (with a T) paying off victims of sexual abuse. Result: Ireland (of all places) endorsed same-sex marriage by popular vote and with a hefty margin at that. Talk about some princes of the Church feeling butt hurt.

  • Actually she could resign and then wouldn’t have to obey anyone. The problem isn’t that she doesn’t want to obey the courts. It’s that she wants to defy the judge’s order but also keep her job.

  • Do you always make the most ridiculously extremist analogy or is this just today?

    This isn’t anything like Nazi Germany nor is issuing a marriage license even remotely like killing someone. Yes, there are times when you should defy an order. And again, she could quit her job at any time.

    You’ve never been asked to do things at a job even though you found them morally or ethically repugnant? I have. And I got out of there as soon as I could find a job. (I forget not everyone worked for Wall St banksters, so maybe you were never in this situation.)

  • Because they are heavily invested in their own persecution complex.

  • She’d still be a hypocrite.

    I know so many people just like this. You’d think that their past experiences would make them sympathetic to the situations other people find them in. It doesn’t. It just makes them that much more judgmental and mean-spirited even towards people who did exactly what they once did.

    One of the reasons that so many people have taken a disliking to Davis is that she reminds all of us of that hypocritical Evangelical nutjob we have to deal with at every holiday gathering.

  • If she weren’t interfering with other people’s legal rights I wouldn’t care at all how many divorces and affairs and whatever else she’s had. I’d have never heard of her now that I think about it and even if I had I tend to mind my own business about such things. But as she has set herself up in this holier than thou position, she’s being understandably criticized for her hypocrisy.

  • So her sins don’t count but she gets to condemn everyone else for theirs? Nice little racket these fundies have. Of course everyone else sees through the double-standard of them not wanting to be judged while they sit in judgement of everyone else.

  • Good to know that you can pick your own brand of Christianity to fit whatever you want the Bible to say.

  • You cannot just ignore court orders. She appealed. It went to SCOTUS and they refused to rehear the complaint. She said she wouldn’t comply with the order which meant the judge had no other choice. We can’t just let people ignore court decisions.

    For years now there were county clerks who felt terrible that they weren’t allowed to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. But they followed the law instead of their own consciences. But Davis thinks she’s above the law. I don’t like that she’s in jail. She should do her job or resign. That’s the same choice everyone else has to make when they are faced with a job that violates their own conscience. Why is she better than the rest of us?

  • cecilia

    indeed she is!
    and her big “sin” (in my view) is taking money for a job she is refusing to do.

    how incredibly unprofessional !!!

  • Maura Hart

    bricks of money in his case

  • Maura Hart

    isn’t there an exemption for an illegal order?

  • Maura Hart

    several have quite publicly proved that marriage vows mean nothing.

  • Jason Westerly

    Wow, your ability to twist words is incredible. Let me see if I can make sense of what you say:

    To set aside a ban against same-sex marriage is violating childrens’ rights to be born. Is that what you said? hmmmm..

    Perhaps your lost profession is to be a volunteer at Cardinal Burke’s “No Marriage for those not going to have Babies Society”. Or, you could form the “Protection of Unconceived Children Foundation”.

  • Matthew

    Never said it was easy. Within the Christian family of faith there are indeed a variety of views. I suppose that´s why things like the Nicene Creed, the Apostle´s creed, etc. were created — to give Christians a sense of essentials to rally around.

  • Matthew

    Different Christians think the Bible (and Jesus) say competing things about this topic. I suppose because of this, she should have grace toward those she is refusing to give licenses to and others should offer grace toward her current situation. It´s all so unclear sometimes …….

  • You didn’t really address my point. Yes, there are thousands of kinds of Christians. That makes it so easy to pick the one that teaches what you believe anyway. Just like the Christians who read various translations until they find the one they like.

  • mintap

    Based on how you paraphrased what I wrote, I think the twisting may be occurring closer to your side of the transmission than mine.

    I’ll say a little more to try and help:
    Many states had amendments that basically said the male-female union is set apart. Those amendments have been blocked and banned.

    Every child originates through the male-female union. It is deep within all of our genetics. This is the context of the beginning of each individuals human rights.

    Everyone is originates alive, there is a right to life.
    Everyone originates a separate person, there is a right to liberty.
    Everyone originates through a specific mother and father, these people have parental rights.
    Everyone originates through a specific family arrangement.

    A means to secure this right is to have an institution that is simply based on whatever arrangement that happens to be. This is the arrangement that 100% of children enter through, so it is as purely equitable and universal as a policy could be.
    This is until a child is old enough to consent to any alternative arrangements.

    Adults have the freedom of association to enter any arrangement with any self-identified orientations provided there is consent.
    Children (who are not yet able to consent) already have a specific arrangement. States should not be banned from setting apart such an arrangement.

    And there need not be any violations of medical privacy to set this arrangement apart. There is more than enough public information available:
    1. people
    2. two of them
    3. one of each sex
    4. post-pubescent age/age of consent
    5. not of close blood relation

  • TheAngryFag

    She is not Rosa Parks. She is the bus driver who demanded Rosa Parks give up her seat.

    She is an agent of the state in her job therefore her religious beliefs are checked at the door when they conflict with her official function. Matthew 18:8-9 dictates that if she feels the job is forcing her to “sin”, then she must resign.

  • TheAngryFag

    Jesus told her to quit her job.

  • Chris Garton-Zavesky

    I’m new here, so if what I’m about to say has been said before, please excuse my repeating what someone else has already said.
    Mrs. Davis was elected to the post, and so when she goes to jail (which, at the time of my writing is already in the past tense) a publicly elected official has been sent to jail. She hasn’t been stripped of her office.
    She’s not forcing others to accept her religious beliefs. She’s merely insisting that her religious beliefs don’t allow her to do something which a recently changed law (at least in theory) requires her to do. As a public citizen, she still has a right to a conscience — for far too many public officials abandon a conscience when they achieve office, so as to keep the office.
    Is refusal to act according to the law automatically grounds for removal? Apparently not: Gavin Newsom and Gerry Brown both received promotions, and few clamored for their removal from office when they decided to be derelict in their duties: Newsom issued marriage licenses to two-man couples and two-woman couples in direct defiance of the law, and Gerry Brown refused, as attorney general, to defend the constitution of California in court.
    When the law changed, to require northerners to return escaped slaves, a great many people recognized the evil being done in the name of the law. Since the change in the law really amounted to turnabout being fair play, the northerners having required the southern states not to “nullify” federal laws in the name of states’ rights, it was a question of being caught in their own trap. Some people (many, even) will claim that in the one case, an evil was being perpetrated, and in the other a good was being advanced, and so the cases are not similar.
    And that brings us to the real problem: the content of the law. One side in this debate considers the “obligation” to grant marriage licenses to two-male couples and two-female couples null, because they consider it an obligation to commit immorality and to support immorality in others. The other side considers the same “obligation” a simple question of doing what is right. In both cases, something beyond merely what is legally possible is at stake. Both groups appeal to an authority beyond the law. (The one to religious duty and God, the other to human rights, civil rights, the right side of history and so on).
    The expression “civil society” describes that which is not dependent on the government. We need to recapture an awareness of civil society, so as to relieve our government of the responsibility or obligation to answer questions it is ill adapted to address.
    Our Supreme Court, in our allegedly limited form of government, can’t claim for itself authority beyond American shores: it can’t make laws for other countries, nor can it impose its authority on the rulers of other nations.

  • Sun Jul

    Well, as you brought up Nazi Germany, I can’t help thinking of this analogy: Adolf Hitler opposed his government’s treaty to end WWI on the grounds that it betrayed the moral principles of the German people. When he stood up and demonstrated against the government he was arrested and convicted of treason. That event catapulted him into the public eye, and the rest, as they say, is history.

  • Robert Conner
  • Wesley Brock

    “Newsom issued marriage licenses to two-man couples and two-woman couples in direct defiance of the law”

    Actually Gavin never did that. As when the marriage certs were given out there was NO SUCH LAW in California and there wouldn’t be one until 2008’s Prop 8 Amendment. Not only that but Gavin, unlike the clerk Kim Davis, did not act unilaterally but instead “Newsom’s staff contacted the city attorney’s office and asked for help. “Then they started giving key people the heads up. They called the offices of Pelosi and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. They alerted Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the city’s two gay supervisors, Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty, and national Democrat Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe.”

    http://samuel-warde.com/2015/09/debunking-right-wing-lies-kd-ky/

    Gerry Brown did not defend the constitution because he knew it was indefensible and furthermore he was under NO obligation to do so actually. An aspect of his job was discretion in what cases he chooses. That includes ones regarding the constitution of his state

    Contrast these with Kim Davis’s actions. She DOES NOT have the discretion to deny couples who meet the legal requirements of marriage. Not only that but she doesn’t have any good justification unlike Gavin who cited the Californian Constitution’s equal protection clause. It is also incredible disingenuous to compare anti slavery to anti-gay rights. The instance of anti-slavers involves disobedience of a law that disenfranchises the rights of other humans. We can lay out a secular harm vs benefit table in this matter. Kim Davis objection is based on what? Her religion? The words of her god? A god she can’t even prove isn’t a figment of her imagination. Their is a massive moral gulf between her actions and the actions of anti-slavers. She for instance can provide no secular justifications for her actions, anti-slavers can.

  • seashell

    In both cases, something beyond merely what is legally possible is at stake. Both groups appeal to an authority beyond the law. (The one to religious duty and God, the other to human rights, civil rights, the right side of history and so on).

    The expression “civil society” describes that which is not dependent on the government. We need to recapture an awareness of civil society, so as to relieve our government of the responsibility or obligation to answer questions it is ill adapted to address.

    In these two nonsensical paragraphs alone, there’s enough twisting going on to qualify them as tornadoes, with debris clouds. Small government wouldn’t solve your problems or Kim’s or put the problem beyond what is legally possible. It is government’s (large or small) responsibility to resolve conflicting opinions of the law through the courts, as it has by holding Davis in contempt. Finally, one side is appealing to the law to get marriage licenses, not to God, Wonder Bread or anything else.

  • Brian Westley

    Many states had amendments that basically said the male-female union is set apart. Those amendments have been blocked and banned.

    Because they conflicted with the federal constitution’s equal protection clause.

  • mintap

    Ginsburg didn’t recuse herself even though her bias and violating of the judicial code of conduct was evident. She is one of the bus drivers.

    But instead we need people with the right convictions in power to resist such tyranny.

    Daniel did not resign from his position. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego did not reign from their positions. And they did not check the eternal truths of their religion at the door when performing their official functions.

  • mintap

    100% of people originate through the male-female union. Setting apart that union is as equitable as a policy could possibly be.

  • Chris Garton-Zavesky

    Wesley,
    You didn’t mean this, but your style of writing sounds as if you’re shouting without using all caps.
    Let’s try again.
    If Kim Davis is in trouble for refusing to enforce the law, then the case of Gavin Newsom actively disregarding the law is appropriate. He didn’t deny people already allowed to receive marriage licenses — but he broke the law anyway. He refused to enforce the law as it existed, and that’s the ground on which people are saying she must quit her job. This isn’t a question of the great spaghetti monster, but a question of judging two people who refuse to apply the law as written by the same standard.
    Gerry Brown’s certainty that Proposition 8 wouldn’t pass constitutional muster in California or on the U.S. Federal level must have been based on the assessment that laws don’t really mean what they say. (This has been borne out by the U.S. Supreme Court recently, in two decisions in which the Chief Justice too contradictory positions.) It wasn’t based on the text of either the California constitution or the U.S. Constitution.
    If the Attorney General isn’t required to defend the laws of his state, and to enforce them, why can a lowly clerk be expected to enforce them and apply them as written?
    “Equal protection” applies to things which are equal, being treated unequally. Black people and white people are equal before the law, so discriminating against either group is inappropriate under the law. Since the law, both as written and in the intervening years, had never understood two men to have the ability to marry each other, both both men to have a the ability to marry a woman –but not the same woman at the same time — it is unreasonable to assume that the law or the constitution had ever previously seen man-woman couples as receiving unlawfully distinct treatment.
    I’m not making an argument based on religion, but I would defend the ability of persons to base their courses of behavior on ostensibly held ostensible religious beliefs WITH THE PROVISO that the religious belief had existed prior to the objection in question and that the person claiming the religious belief had held it before the conflict in question had arisen. (That sounds awkward, but I hope you understand my meaning. Simply put, religious beliefs created for the purpose of avoiding the law and religious adherence claimed merely for the purpose of avoiding the law don’t hold water with me.)

  • TheAngryFag

    So I guess Jihad is legal in your world view. Congratulations.

  • Brian Westley

    100% of people originate through the male-female union. Setting apart that union is as equitable as a policy could possibly be.

    The supreme court disagrees with your idea of equality.

  • seashell

    100% of people originate through the male-female union. Setting apart that union is as equitable as a policy could possibly be.

    Set-apart from what and equitable with what? Life, reality, the planet? Under your logic, people should live with their parents and never leave home, because the male-female union that produced them apparently dictates everything else in life.

  • TheAngryFag

    And, as agents of the State, they are violating the 1st Amendment.

  • mintap

    When the Court loses some of its relevance, that doesn’t mean everyone who should be holding it accountable should just retreat and leave the bad policy as is.

    MLK wrote from jail about how “nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”

    We need people in power causing tension. We need enough so that it cannot be ignored.

  • mintap

    Adults already have the freedom of association. They can enter any arrangement (of any self-identified orientations) so long as there is consent.

    Children however are not old enough to consent. So until they are old enough, we have to honor whatever arrangement they naturally identify with. (Adoption policy must honor these children’s rights as well.)

    So it makes sense to set apart that arrangement from any of the other arrangements adults can freely enter into. This is entirely valid in equity and follows the 14th amendment protections because it is appealing to a universal fact. Every child originates through the male-female union.

    Banning states from setting apart this union makes no sense.

  • mintap

    Yes, they have in the past as well. (see Dred Scott ruling)

  • Brian Westley

    Are you seriously comparing government recognition of same-sex marriages with slavery? Wow, what a non-martyr.

  • seashell

    Nonsense. Marriage isn’t reserved only for people with children, nor is it necessary in order to produce children. Religions are free to reserve marriage to only people with children, or to reserve its religious ceremonies for 1 man and 1 woman only, but states encompass a far greater demographic than some religions. And adoption agencies are free to allow adoptions to a 1 man and 1 woman marriage, as long as they don’t take federal money.

    You want religious authority over not only the religious, but the non-religious also, and that ain’t gonna fly. Pasting biology onto religion doesn’t make it pure biology.

  • TheAngryFag

    Yeah… maybe someday a Christian can be elected president too because they’re sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oppressed… oh wait…

  • mintap

    It is children that are the victims here. They will not be ignored. It still remains that every single one of them originates through the male-female union. Banning states from setting apart this union will not stand. Courageous and compassionate people (in and outside of government) will reveal this tension (and be supported by crowdfunding) until the ban is dropped.

  • Jason Westerly

    I obviously don’t have a clue as to what you are really getting at. You called lifting the ban preventing me from taking part in the civil contract of marriage that secures the same protection benefits to me and my chosen other as in an opposite-sex civil marriage contract to be somehow a banning of a State’s exclusive statement to ensure the rights of a child to an opposite sex family?

    Is that correct? If not, perhaps you could explain it differently. For instance, exactly how does the inability of anyone to again deny me the right to see my comatose spouse in the hospital after a car accident when we were traveling out of state as happened a little less than a decade ago, removing anyone else’s rights except perceived rights to make sure I don’t have that right?

    Since homosexuals cannot reproduce and you are referring to children, are you indicating you oppose adoption by same-sex couples? I’m having difficulty understanding you.

  • mintap

    But you know that the ruling in Obergfell appeals to the “spirituality” of the pair-bond for marriage policy. By all means people are free to celebrate that in their private house of worship, but should that be the basis of a secular country’s marriage policy?

    States do encompass a far greater demographic and should base their policy on something more universal. Every single child originates through the same kind of arrangement. That is as universal as a principle could be, and there is more than enough public information to set apart whatever arrangement that is. The state need not be violating medical privacy when setting apart that union.

  • mintap

    Everyone originates alive, there is a natural right to life.
    Everyone originates a separate person, there is a natural right to liberty.
    Everyone originates through a specific mother and father, those people have parental rights.
    Everyone originates through the male-female union.

    For whatever reason some rulings violate these natural rights, but the U.S. was instituted to secure these Creator-endowed rights. We know what these are by considering what is universal about human nature specifically regarding the characteristics of everyone’s moment of creation.

  • Brian Westley

    Now you’re just babbling nonsense. You’ll just have to learn to live with legal same-sex marriage in the US.

  • mintap

    There are multiple different uses of the word “marriage,” so for clarity it may be helpful to avoid that term, or alternatively start by saying what you actually mean by it. (I don’t think I used that term at all, did I?) If you would like you could define what you mean by “marriage” and show why the state should be interested in that version of marriage.

    But you seem to be focusing on the benefits that many states have traditionally applied with marriage. I probably agree with you on many of these. I think anyone should be free to have whomever they want visit them in the hospital. I think people should be free to have whomever they want inherit their stuff. I think these benefits should apply to anyone: single people, couples, and all sorts of arrangements (of any self-identified orientations).

    And regarding adoption, we should have adoption policy be child-focused instead of adult-focused. What arrangement are human children naturally associated with? Whatever it is, that should be the kind of arrangement that adoption agencies provide for children. That is until they are old enough to consent otherwise.

  • mintap

    Do you see why we should be associating the current violation of natural rights with previous ones now? If you really think such natural rights (and our means of recognizing them) is “babbling nonsense” do you see how you could have been there along with all the others supporting previous violations of natural rights?

    The Abolitionists stood up for a universal principle against those that wanted economic progress. They appealed to our Creator-endowed rights. They did not learn to live with slavery in the U.S. We are not learning to live with abortion in the U.S., and we will not learn to live with states being banned from setting apart the male-female union, the arrangement that every single child originates through.

    This universal aspect of human nature will not be changing. For society to progress we’ll have to align our policy with it in some way.

  • Brian Westley

    Do you see why we should be associating the current violation of natural rights with previous ones now?

    Not at all. I disagree with your nonsensical version of “rights”.

  • mintap

    Where do you think we get rights from then? Is it simply something granted by powerful people?

  • Wesley Brock

    I’m sorry but did you not understand that in 2004 when Gavin did this there was no law against gay marriage in his state? And there wouldn’t be until 2008’s Prop 8 which was struck down in court. So he wasn’t disregarding the law as the law did not exist. The certs were only issued in within the city and were issued using the Equal Protection clause of the state’s constitution. There was no definitive law against this which is why it had to go to court. The court ruled he had exceeded his authority and nullified the marriages. So he was reprimanded for this even though he would later be vindicated by the Supreme Court of both his state and the US. The reason for Kim Davis’ jailing is because she has refused several direct court orders which Gavin did not. You’ll note that she’s being charged in contempt of court.

    “previously seen man-woman couples as receiving unlawfully distinct treatment.”

    That the law didn’t previously see it says nothing about it now. The Equal Protection clause was also written before a number of now protected groups were conceived. The spirit and letter of the law lends itself to this no matter how you attempt to spin it. Hence why many states use it to justify non discrimination against new age religions that were not conceived of at the time. Or ethnic groups and transgendered people. Your attempt to narrow its understanding to just race falls flat as that is not how it’s used around the U.S.

    “that the religious belief had existed prior to the objection in question and that the person claiming the religious belief had held it before the conflict in question had arisen.”

    So here’s the problem as I see it. Why does it matter that is a belief she held before now? Her religion has no shortage of beliefs she ignores but this is the specific one she chooses? Is there not a requirement that she be consistent? Or can you just cherry pick them as you like? This brings and issue I haven’t seen discussed but why do we think worthwhile? What happen when there is a government office with 6 different religious people all with their own pet peeve so that any person needing a clerk that day has to deal with yet another layer of bullshit. Especially those people apart of historically disenfranchised groups that religions love to hate. Like for instance women. Do you for instance think a Jewish clerk could refuse to serve woman and make his office do the same? Perhaps a KKK member refuse to serve any “non-Aryan” or Muslims refuse to serve unveiled women. These are all beliefs within this religions. You’re asking for anarchy. And that doesn’t hold water with me.

  • Brian Westley

    Where do you think we get rights from then?

    Not from your god, or anyone else’s god. Rights are a social convention.

  • mintap

    And that is a problem there. Some societies have had conventions that support things like slavery, eugenics, or abortion. With your approach to rights you have no recourse to respond to these. This is why your approach is associated with how it has been used in the past.

    And the U.S. was specifically founded to secure rights endowed by our Creator, not rights endowed by social convention. Do you really think you are in a position to undermine the founding of the U.S.? Do you really think such an attempt should not face any resistance?

  • Brian Westley

    And that is a problem there. Some societies have had conventions that support things like slavery, eugenics, or abortion.

    You mean the way the Southern Baptist Convention was formed expressly to defend slavery?

    Are you ignorant of all the religiously-based political systems that decide what rights people have (or don’t have) because they say that’s what their god says?

    With your approach to rights you have no recourse to respond to these.

    Of course I do. What would you do against the Southern Baptist Convention when they insisted that slavery was god-approved? Tell them you have a direct hotline to god?

    This is why your approach is associated with how it has been used in the past.

    Well, your god-given approach is associated with slavery and ISIL.

  • TheAngryFag

    And how are children victims?

  • mintap

    Banning states from setting up an institution protective of children, violates children.

  • mintap

    The U.S. was founded on an appeal to Nature and Nature’s God. Yes, of course, there are abuses of appeals to God (e.g., many people appeal to God today to defend homosexuality), but that is not grounds to throw out the whole basis, but instead that means we need to strengthen it and refine it. e.g., appealing to God to defend slavery was rejected.

  • Brian Westley

    The U.S. was founded on an appeal to Nature and Nature’s God.

    And the constitution was written by people, not your god.

    And now you’re just special pleading — your arguments have no more weight than the pro-slavery arguments of the SBC.

  • TheAngryFag

    Same-sex marriages isn’t harmful to children in spite of your cult’s beliefs

  • mintap

    I’m opposed to forcing the “spirituality” (Justice Kennedy’s word in Obergefell) of the pair-bond onto society. I instead support basing marriage policy on something universal and secular like basic human biology. Every single child originates through the male-female union. States should not be banned from setting apart that union.

  • TheAngryFag

    No, some children originate in test tubes. And they actually can do children from two women now too. Science!

  • mintap

    Not yet, but we could also clone and genetically engineer people in all sorts of ways as well. Do you think there are no bioethical issues with any of that? What issues of a human’s natural right to liberty come into play here? What if the technology was there so that parents (or government officials) could choose any kind of genetic modification to children until they are 18. Would you be okay with that? Wouldn’t that violate the children’s rights? What if a “gay gene” is found that parents could erase?

    This line of thinking is reminiscent of previous progressive ideals in eugenics as well. Should that return? No.

  • TheAngryFag

    We already do it now. Children are forced into medical treatment by their parents. Male children have their genitals routinely mutilated. Heck, some children even have their sex/gender forced on them by their parents.

    But, getting back to the issue, same-sex marriage is marriage, it is here to stay, nothing bad is happening to heterosexual marriage. Welcome to reality. Deal with it. Get over it.

  • mintap

    Let’s see what the sociological data brings. We should follow it, right? remember: Science!

  • seashell

    But you know that the ruling in Obergfell appeals to the “spirituality” of the pair-bond for marriage policy. By all means people are free to celebrate that in their private house of worship, but should that be the basis of a secular country’s marriage policy?

    Yes. Furthermore, considering the percentage of the heterosexual demographic, which vastly outweighs that of the same sex attracted, the ‘male-female union’ will persist in the future without a special setting apart in some magical sphere that only you can envision as making sense.

  • JP

    State officials have broken the law on this issue years ago and they were not rebuked nor thrown in prison. Consider:

    In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of California state law.

    In 2004, Mayor Jason West of New Paltz directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of New York state law.

    In 2010, attorney general Jerry Brown declined to answer legal challenges to California’s marriage law, which, after Proposition 8, was that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid.” His job was to represent the state of California in legal matters and
    defend its laws, including those he didn’t like.

    In 2013,
    D. Bruce Hanes, an official of Montgomery County, began issuing marriage
    licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of Pennsylvania state law.

  • JP

    Children would be denied one parent. A man cannot be a mom and a woman cannot be a dad.

  • JP

    If rights are a “social convention” then those rights can easily be changed. The Nazis did this which led to the holocaust. There is nothing to stop some court some day from reversing a previous courts decisions.

  • TheAngryFag

    They didn’t “break the law”. The State simply refused to accept those certificates because Federal trumps State, State trumps Local.

    And yes, it is their job to defend laws even if they don’t like them. However if they feel the law will not pass constitutional muster, then they are also obligated to not waste that state’s money. This is why one of the AGs in one state refused to defend a district court lawsuit against their marriage discrimination law. The federal circuit had already ruled on it thus the judge would have been bound to find against the state no matter what defense, or lack thereof, was done.

    As for Hanes, the state went to court to get an injunction to stop him from doing it. He would have been in violation of the law if he had disobeyed that court order as Kim Davis did. But fun little fact, all of those licenses he issued are valid :)

  • TheAngryFag

    Children are already denied one parent by a little thing called “divorce”. Around 40% of children are born to unwed mothers. According to the Census Bureau, there are over 12,000,000 single parent homes where in 80% of it the mother is the parent. 25% of children, around 17,400,000, are being raised without a father.

    All of that without same-sex marriage being in the picture.

  • JP

    This is true. However, same sex “marriage” does nothing to improve this but actually makes it worse.

  • TheAngryFag

    In your opinion maybe, but real experts beg to differ.

  • JP

    Not just opinion but fact.

  • TheAngryFag

    Citation plz

  • mintap

    Adults that may ever self-identify as heterosexual or as same-sex attracted will persist in the future without special setting apart to freely associate within whatever consensual arrangements they choose.

    Your argument applies much more to civil marriage (when thought of as an emotional union between consenting adults) than to marriage (when thought of as an institution that sets apart whatever arrangement humans originate through.)

    The point is that additional incentive to secure the male-female union, (a potential mother and father) with whatever offspring they may have can make a difference in securing that offsprings rights.

    Setting apart the pair-bond (to celebrate its “spirituality”) makes no difference compared to the already available freedom of association, and therefore makes much less sense, especially for a secular state.

  • Brian Westley

    If rights are a “social convention” then those rights can easily be changed.

    The same is true of “god-given” rights.

    There is nothing to stop some court some day from reversing a previous courts decisions.

    “God” in this country used to be OK with slavery, but not anymore.

  • Pat L

    Excellent article, clearly and respectfully explained. More alarming to me is that some presidential candidates are taking the same position as Graham. Are they just pandering, or actually ignorant of how our government works. Unacceptable either way.

  • JP

    God given rights cannot be changed.

    If rights are a “”social convention” then there is nothing to stop slavery from coming back either.

  • Brian Westley

    God given rights cannot be changed.

    Because there’s no such thing.

    But if what you say is true, I guess that means slavery really IS fine with your god, since so many millions of people were slaves over so many centuries. “Rights” that don’t exist for centuries don’t really exist, period.

    If rights are a “”social convention” then there is nothing to stop slavery from coming back either.

    True, but irrelevant. “god-given” rights are just a fallacious argument from authority of a person’s opinion trying to disguise itself as divine commands. The Southern Baptist Convention was absolutely sure their god approved of slavery.

  • JP

    There is such a thing as God-given rights. Consider that the Declaration of Independence tells us that our rights are based on God given rights:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–” Declaration of Independents.

    If you are an atheist there is nothing wrong wrong with slavery, rape etc. Atheism has nothing to say about these things and cannot disprove of them.

  • Brian Westley

    There is such a thing as God-given rights.

    No there aren’t, because anyone can claim anything is a “god-given” right:

    1) Being free is a god-given right

    2) Owning slaves is a god-given right

    By the way, you might have noticed that the original constitution was fine with slavery.

    If you are an atheist there is nothing wrong wrong with slavery, rape etc.

    Nope, but godbotherers like you have no problem lying about atheists and claiming they don’t have morals.

    Atheism has nothing to say about these things and cannot disprove of them.

    Because atheism isn’t a moral system. Bowling doesn’t say anything about slavery and rape, either.

    However, Christianity was fine with slavery and some kinds of rape for centuries, because “god-given” rights are really just arbitrary.

  • cvryder2000

    Bull pucky. A stable family of ANY kind is good for a child, and better than no family at all. Have you ever talked to children of same-sex families?

    I thought not.

  • cvryder2000

    Excuse me? Cite your sources. But not if they are the Duggars.

  • cvryder2000

    Stuff and nonsense. Nobody is setting anything “apart”. States are adding another dimension.

    Furthermore, there are a lot of children who were born of male-female “unions” who are somehow “unwanted” and in state care. There are not very many male-female couples out there wanting to even care for them as foster children, let alone adopt them, but there are same-sex couples who are wiling to foster and adopt them. You would deny those children *any* family with your silly attitude.

  • JP

    How can you have a stable family when the child has 2 mommies and no daddy?

  • JP

    Glad to see you acknowledge the bankruptcy of atheism.

    So we agree that the Declaration of Independence bases humans rights on the Creator and these rights are God given?

  • mintap

    Source for what?

    Obergefell v. is where the ban comes from. It struck down the power and responsibility of states to set apart the male-female union.

    The union that every single child originates though, that is the context of the beginning of every individual’s human rights must be treated the same as other arrangements that don’t hold such distinction. This diminishes the securing of human rights.

  • mintap

    Now states are forced to set the pair-bond apart as “spiritually” distinct and more beneficial compared to any other possible arrangement. That is not adding anything. There ALREADY was the freedom of association for any pair-bond (and more arrangements). Now there is additional discrimination against all those other arrangements. What about the “spirituality” of the trio? The policy forced on all the states now is a mess.

    And it is especially the children that have the misfortune of losing their natural mother and father that should not also lose their natural family arrangement. Adoption should be child focused and not adult focused. Whatever basic arrangement they are naturally associated with should be what they are provided with, unless they are old enough to consent to something different. Children have rights. They deserve equal protection.

    And there are many male-female couples wanting to adopt. There is typically a long wait and many end up going overseas to adopt.

  • Brian Westley

    Glad to see you acknowledge the bankruptcy of atheism.

    I see you’re still being dishonest.

    Atheism isn’t bankrupt; it just doesn’t imply any particular morals.

    So we agree that the Declaration of Independence bases humans rights on the Creator and these rights are God given?

    No, we don’t. In any case, the US government is based on the constitution, not the D of I, which was written before the US existed.

    Do you admit the original constitution was OK with slavery? Do you agree that the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to defend slavery?

  • seashell

    Plenty of children are available to adopt. The long waits and overseas trips involve babies. Do you really think a child would choose to stay in foster care and family services versus a loving home with a same sex couple? Children’s rights need to be independent of the parents, as they are where most of the abuse comes from.

    The only marriage mess going on in the states involves a few individual government agents who have made up their own Christian theology and refuse to listen to anyone with knowledge of the subject. Otherwise, things are going swimmingly. The sun still rises and sets, the world still turns, the planets are doing their thing and people move on with their lives. You might want to consider doing the same, instead of thinking up wild schemes that make sense only to you.

  • Ah the old ‘gay couples can’t have children so their marriages are invalid’ argument that conveniently ignores infertile or elderly straight people who marry.

    Keep screaming ‘think of the children!’ as thousands of people enter loving, stable marriages, many of whom will adopt the children straight people abandoned to the state. Fewer and fewer people are listening.

  • Love?
    Affection?
    Discipline?
    Financial stability?
    Good parenting techniques?

    Or are you really saying that ALL of these things are exclusive to straight people only?

  • mintap

    “Do you really think a child would choose to stay in foster care and family services versus a loving home with a same sex couple?”

    What, there are no third options?

    And think of this question as well do you really think all slaves would choose to be on their own versus under the care of a loving owner? Just like how an answer to that question is irrelevant to the need to secure a slave’s natural right to liberty, the answer to your question is irrelevant for the need to secure a child’s natural right to a mother-father family.

    Children’s rights cannot be utterly independent of their parents until they grow old enough. Abuse is much more likely to occur when outside the care of one’s biological parents than when under their care.

    Even under slavery, eugenics or wide-spread abortion the sun still sets and rises, the world still turns, the planets do their thing and many people move on with their lives. But what about the people that are directly affected? What about the slaves, those deemed degenerate, the unborn, and children intentionally denied a mother and father? You may move on with your life, but that is because you are in a position of privilege. You would have been one those telling the Abolitionists that, “You might want to consider moving on with your life, instead of thinking up wild schemes that make sense only to you,” wouldn’t you have been?

  • “…..there’s enough twisting going on to qualify them as tornadoes, with debris clouds” – a gorgeous turn of phrase. I might have to plagiarise that sometime….

  • mintap

    That wasn’t my argument. My argument was that all children originate only through one kind of arrangement.

    This universal fact of human nature will stand long after the LGBT lobby’s marketing funds dry up.

    And so if those thousands of people couldn’t take advantage of the freedom of association to love and to commit to each other why do you expect anything to be different? Do you really think such people will only be satisfied and able to love each other with government confirmation? What will happen when so many of them are still not fulfilled?

    And what will happen as more and more sociological data come in? We should follow the science wherever it leads.

  • JD
  • seashell

    Please help yourself. And thanks!

  • JP

    Only a heterosexual couple can model a balanced parenting that the child needs.

  • seashell

    Wow, buddy. Just … wow.

  • JP

    Any belief system that can’t address evil actions is bankrupt. Any belief system that can’t call murder and rape evil is bankrupt.

    The Declaration of Independence is the foundation for our rights in this country. Take that away and you can say good by to your rights because that means the state could take away your rights if it so wanted to.

    Did a judge on his own rule out slavery or did it take an act of congress to do it?

    You still have to show me by atheism that there is something wrong with slavery before you can say that anyone who supported slavery was wrong. Do that then we can discuss the Baptist.

  • Cindy Temple

    So you are saying.. if my teenager thinks I am being cruel for not letting him drink beer with his friends down the street it isn’t love?
    My father advising not to spend too much with a credit card is not love because I perceive he is just an old fashioned prude.
    Your logic failed miserably there.

  • Cindy Temple

    It does depend on how you define love I suppose. Coercion is defined as an act of force. Letting someone know you will not support something they do or giving a warning of danger like “hey don’t put your hand on the stove it will burn you”.. is not coercion. What you do with the advice is always up to you.

  • JP

    If this statement is true–..”Instead, this is about Ms. Davis’s attempt to force her religious restrictions on the general public and an attempt to conform the secular government into the image and likeness of Christ (or her version thereof).

    And this is why she and Franklin are wrong, even if their theology were somehow proven to be right. Nowhere in the New Testament does it tell us we are to take control of government and shape it to look like Jesus. Jesus never advocates taking political power, or using the power of government to build the Kingdom of God. Never.” then what those who worked against slavery in the South in the 1800’s were wrong also.

  • Cindy Temple

    It was hypothetical to the context of the blogger stating to do what your job description says or quit.
    It could be any ad.. insert >something the blogger considers against his own religious conviction< here.
    Suddenly he is faced with the same choice. It is highly relevant.

  • Brian Westley

    Any belief system that can’t address evil actions is bankrupt.

    Atheism isn’t a belief system. You can’t predict anything about an atheist beyond their non-belief in gods.

    Any belief system that can’t call murder and rape evil is bankrupt.

    Like Christianity? Do you even know what Christianity says about rape, or who should be killed?

    The Declaration of Independence is the foundation for our rights in this country.

    No, it isn’t. The courts use the constitution when ruling on rights, not the D of I.

    Did a judge on his own rule out slavery or did it take an act of congress to do it?

    I thought you’ve been claiming that your god prohibits slavery; do you now agree that it takes the actions of humans?

    It took a constitutional amendment, which involves congress and the state governments.

    You still have to show me by atheism that there is something wrong with slavery before you can say that anyone who supported slavery was wrong.

    No, I don’t. I don’t get my morals from atheism. You’re just another ignorant Christian who thinks I have to get my morals from my atheism, but that’s your error, not mine.

  • cvryder2000

    Many of those couples don’t want to deal with the “foster to adopt” process, which is the main method of adoption now. They’re afraid of foster kids because “they have too much trauma”. Or they don’t want open adoptions, which are the norm here. Or they don’t want special needs kids, or the big thing, they what perfect NEWBORNS. Most of the gay adoptions have been foster to adopt and many of those kids have been special needs, or older children.

  • cvryder2000

    Family is what you make it, not some “Dick and Jane” storybook.

  • cvryder2000

    Keep going with your convolution, you are so tied in knots you now look like the worm Ouroboros.

  • Nick Winters

    I may be making a highly semantic point. I’m distinguishing here between actions done out of love and loving actions.
    Both your examples are actions done out of love. They are not necessarily loving actions unless the teenager understands that they are done out of love. So the teenager in your first example could think you are wrong but still understand why you do what you do.

    Ultimately I’m trying to get at the notion that harming people out of love does not make the harmful actions loving. I’m also a fan of parenting styles in which children are given a wide degree of autonomy and respect while still being strongly guided by the parents (see Libby Anne’s blog for an example on Patheos). Thus “Don’t drink beer with your friends!” is not as loving as “Don’t drink beer with your friends because…” and having a conversation so that understanding is reached on both sides.

  • mintap

    Your response here makes no point and is therefore useless.

  • mintap

    How can reform the adoption process so that more children are provided with whatever arrangement they are naturally associated with?

  • tyler

    this is what you think marriage is? a permission slip from the government to fall in love?

    hey everyone looks like we can stop trying to destroy marriage, the straight people have done a fine job of it all by themselves.

  • mintap

    Human Rights are a big deal.

  • mintap

    Of course The Huffington Post would say something like that. And that is a good sign that it is simply a left-wing talking point.

  • mintap

    I don’t think marriage is that. Civil marriage is a means to secure some human natural rights, particularly related to the natural rights associated with family and an individuals origin. But states have been banned from associating marriage policy with children’s natural rights.

    And most marriage deconstructionists do self-identify as “straight,” and their influence on divorce law was long before same-sex marriage was on the table.

  • cvryder2000

    Get over it. There is no “natural” association. That is an ASSUMPTION on your part.

  • cvryder2000

    No, you just don’t get it. I’m through arguing with you.

  • JD

    Then post confirmed facts and studies that support your claims. Otherwise you will just be dimissed just another homophobic teapugnichristisn that cant stand the fact that gays have equal rights like you.

  • Cindy Temple

    Highly semantic point taken although my teenager was much more strong willed and imaginative in giving way to the acceptance of the qualifying ‘because”.

  • Ann Smith

    Infertility can be treated. Old people could still conceive if God wills it. Sterile people cannot be married in the Catholic church. That kind of union is nullified even before it takes place, so a priest cannot marry a couple where one or both is sterile. Likewise, if either one cannot consummate the sexual union (is impotent) and it is somehow known beforehand, the priest cannot marry them either.

  • Ann Smith

    Checking one’s religion at the door is not an option. That would mean that you love and honor God except when you are at work. My catechism tells me that I follow God’s word every minute of every day. That goes for who I am as a person no matter where I am or who I am with. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, wouldn’t being a Christian only on your one’s time make Kim Davis a hypocrite? I would have resigned if I were Ms. Davis, but it looks like she is saying, “Why should I be forced to give up my position to which I was duly elected?” To me, she is in an impossible situation.
    The Muslim who will not touch pork probably would be turned down for a position as a supermarket cashier, because touching pork is a job requirement. The employer would be within his or her rights. The employer cannot furnish any reasonable accommodation because every time an order included pork, another cashier would have to ring it. Hanging up a sign that said, “No pork in this lane” would also seem unreasonable.
    Let’s say I was a waitress in a strip joint. I don’t think the answer is to make everyone put their clothes back on. I would just want to find a place of business where I could live my live and still honor God. I work for a financial institution and I am very happy there.

  • Ann Smith

    mintap, I will help you out here. Ryan Anderson’s new book, “Truth Overruled” talks about the unique traits that males and females bring to their families. Fathers normally model constructive ways to handle anger and disappointment. They take a keener interest in the long-term formation of their children’s personalities. Mothers, being female, will be more process-oriented as opposed to goal-oriented. It is the female parent who engages in the day-to-day smoothing of hurts, when they occur. Together the two personality types complement each other.

    In the U.S. today, we see rampant violence and often the doers grew up with no father in the household. Look at Adam Lanza and other fatherless youths who turn to a life of violence at an early age. They cannot deal with frustration and disappointment in constructive ways, so they join gangs and shoot people (or just shoot people).

  • Ann Smith

    “Wow…just wow.” What does that even mean?

  • TheAngryFag

    In case you haven’t passed a high school civics course, in this nation we have a little thing called the SEPARATION of church and state. This means that as she is and agent of the state, she cannot enforce anything about her religion on anyone.

    How would you feel if you went to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Muslim staff refused to give you a drivers license because you are a woman? Or the police officer who arrests you because you are outside of your home, without a hijab/burqa/etc on and unaccompanied by a male relative as an escort? In both cases they would be keeping their religion and doing exactly what Kim Davis did. Somehow I doubt you would rush to their defense of religion freedom then. Which is why “religious freedom” is just the right-wing’s masquerading of their bigotry.

    And she should give up her job. First and foremost, she took an oath to uphold the law. She is refusing to perform that oath which she swore “so help me God”. If she did not want to get put into a position where the state conflicted with her religion, then she should not have run for that position at all. That aside, the Bible itself is crystal clear on the fact she needs to get rid of the job in Matthew 18:8-9.

  • Ann Smith

    I would be careful of blanket statements. Unless you know “all” Christians, you are wrong. SMH.

  • Ann Smith

    Not when Caesar wants to be God.

  • mintap

    No problem. Don’t be evil and irrational. Compassion and truth will win. Join us.

  • mintap

    It is no assumption that every single person has the male-female union within their genetics. Science is not useless. It has some value. Not all things are within your subjective mind, under your power. There is a reality out there.

    It is no assumption the black lives matter. They should not be enslaved even if it is loudly promoted that societal and economic progress will only come about through judicial rulings that welcome such policies.

  • Ann Smith

    Yeah, and the Kleins weren’t doxxed? They closed the bakery due to continuous vandalism to the shop and a phone that did not stop ringing day and night. They received bags of hate mail and could not pay their bills. Mrs. Klein hugged one of the plaintiffs at the deposition and said she loved her. How is she a bigot?

  • mintap

    Which claim? I made an analogy. DO you need a peer-reviewed study to know how analogies work? Kim Davis is like Rosa Parks. They were both standing up to unjust policy. They were both arrested. They were both trying to cause tension for a higher cause. That higher cause had to do with natural rights and society-wide and systemic violations of them.

    You haven’t, and no-one in your tribe every really, makes a case for what marriage should be and why. Would you care to try instead of hurling slurs. Tolerance and dialog are possible. But be careful where reason will lead you, especially be careful about where all the new sociological data will lead you. You may not like what you see in yourself. You may have regrets at how you’ve been duped by the LGBT/deconstructionist lobby.

  • Ann Smith

    Muhammed Ali was known as Cassius Clay before he converted to Islam. We would not serve in the U.S military when drafted in 1967 based on his religious convictions. He was jailed. I’m not sure if they now make accommodations based on religious beliefs but I thought I heard that somewhere.

  • Well, they no longer draft people now, if you want to consider that an accommodation.

  • mintap

    Yes, absolutely there are empirically measurable distinctions between fathering and mothering, AND also there are ontological distinctions between the male and female.

    And the good news is that with such bad family policy forced onto all the states now, there will be plenty of sociological data available in the coming years. Whenever the progressive ideology gets its way we learn a lot from the mistakes.

    And who would be the marriage/family-deconstructionist equivalent of Ryan Anderson? Do they have any philosophers or intellectuals on their side?

  • Ann Smith

    It is always about the gays, never about the person doing the objecting. How conveniently they gloss over what the religiously convicted person is feeling. Instead, the religious person is “punishing” or “hating” others. Yes, I would agree that it is time for Kim Davis to resign, but she will not allow herself to be forced to approve of something of which she feels she cannot approve. Many Christian religions teach that if you help someone sin, or say that you approve of their sinful behavior, you have sinned as well. Why does no one get that? I cannot drive you to your vasectomy appointment, hide your stolen goods for you, nor can I lend you money to see a movie that is not considered “wholesome” entertainment. If I participate, approve of, or enable the sinful behavior of another, I have sinned as well. Why does no one get that?

  • Ann Smith

    You are nasty indeed. I have three college degrees so don’t go there. I already said she should leave the position, because it requires her to perform actions that violate her religious beliefs. What you would rather see is someone who is religious in name only; a hypocrite. Just the very thing you seem to criticize. Someone who chooses when to be religious only when the time is right cannot be truly faithful.

  • Ann Smith

    I need to correct one thing. Muhammed Ali avoided jail time because he was free on bail pending his appeals. He was originally sentenced to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 1970 and restored his heavyweight title (which had been revoked). I meant to say that I thought a person can join the military nowadays and still avoid combat situations if they can show religious objections to violence.

  • TheAngryFag

    No, I was factual. When you are an agent of the state your religion is checked at the door. Period. And I explained why this is so. If you want a job where you don’t have the problem, go work in a church. You want a government that doesn’t have the separation of church and state, then Iran and Saudi Arabia await you.

    And it is not about being “religious only when appropriate”. Nothing is stopping her from practicing her religion. What these so-called “Christians” cannot seem to grasp are two simple concepts:

    1) There is a difference between, a rather big one, between practicing ones religion and forcing it on other people. Kim Davis was not practicing her religion. She was inflicting it upon all the couples seeking the service she is legally required to provide in the name of her personal bigotry. She had nothing to do with any marriage. Her sole function in that regard was to certify that the couples seeking the license have met all the requirements that the STATE mandates. Essentially she is like a Jew or Muslim who makes it so not one can have pork because they cannot have it.

    2) That when you are told you cannot do something legally, even though it is a part of your religion specifically, it is NOT religious discrimination. In this case it does not matter what religion she cited to justify her bigoted actions, the result would have been the same. She could be “Christian”, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Satanist or Atheist and the result would have still been the same: Her butt in jail.

    And if she really wants to live by the bible, when is her execution? For Deuteronomy states “Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must die.”

  • Ann Smith

    I already said she should resign. But not because she is trying to convert anyone . Because she will not break her faith. Must everyone with religious beliefs which conflict with your word view be a bigot? My religion states that everyone must be treated with dignity and respect. That includes “every human person.” It also forbids any kind of ejaculation outside the vagina. You can’t get married if you are sterile or permanently impotent and a whole host of other things. If I follow my religion, how does that make me an automatic bigot? It’s not always all about you.

  • JD

    So, you have no facts to back your paranoia of gays having families. Thought as much.

    And, no, Davis is NOT like Rosa Parks. Not even close. Rosa Park’s acts spurred change to laws that were discriminatory. Davis’ acts were to try and continue the discrimination that the law deemed illegal. And now she’s paying for her foolishness.

    As for marriage it’s about love, family, devotion and commitment. Sometimes family isnt always blood nor is it solely dependent upon gender. Each family is unique in that sense but all still based upon love and commitment. Anyone with fully functioning reproductive organs can breed. But without love, devotion, family and commitment it’s nothing more than breeding.

    If you cannot accept that folks of any combination of gender can and do have families then realize the problem lies within yourself. Instead of fearing those having families why not just stick to your own and leave others’ alone.

  • Jeff Preuss

    “Old people could still conceive if God wills it.”
    If God wills it, so could gay people. God is omnipotent. Or did you forget?

  • Jeff Preuss

    And what many folks don’t seem to realize the distinct difference between these other cases and what Davis did…she denied to provide the legally designated civil service to her constituents.

    It is one thing to issue licenses to couples then-otherwise denied them, and a whole other thing to DENY them to people when they should legally be available to them.

    Kim Davis set apart the gay couples as second class and not worthy of HER government services.

  • Jeff Preuss

    She is claiming that the three previous marriages occurred before she was a Christian, so her supporters declare there is “no hypocrisy” involved here.

    That could set up a troubling precedent in the civil sphere, if the general public is expected to completely forgive and forget something done years ago that has relevance or bearing on a current issue, simply because the person is now a Christian. (Or has “been forgiven by God” a la Duggar.)

  • mintap

    There are lots of facts, and more will come in, especially as there are more opportunities for better sampling in the sociological research. If I were the LGBTist lobby, I would be really scared of the science.

    If you are not opposed to science, read the summery here to get you started:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_College_of_Pediatricians.pdf

    “As for marriage it’s about love, family, devotion and commitment.”

    All of these are ALREADY available with the freedom of association.

    What sets marriage apart? Why should marriage discriminate against all the other possible arrangements that the freedom association includes as well? Are you a believer in the “spirituality” (Justice Kennedy’s word in Obergefell) of the pair-bond? (And you say Kim Davis was trying to continue discrimination?!? The new marriage policy is much more discriminatory because of how arbitrary it is.)

    If you want a view of marriage that makes sense, that is not at all discriminatory, and that fits with a secular state, we should simply be appealing to a relevant universals:

    Every single child originates through the male-female union, and every single child is not old enough yet to consent to any alternative family arrangement.

    Something has to be done about these. Having a supportive civil institution regulated in a certain way is an entirely valid way for a state to respond to these points. No state should be banned from setting apart the male-female union.

  • mintap

    Umm… people of any and every self-identified orientation conceive all the time.

  • mintap

    Justice Kennedy is an agent of the state, but he found it okay to force the “spirituality” of the same-sex pair-bond onto everyone. That happened first. Both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagen are agents of the state, but they neglected to recuse themselves even after direct violation of the judicial code of conduct.

  • mintap

    No government official should be forcing the “spirituality” of the pair-bond onto society.

    A secular states need secular principles behind their marriage policy:

    Every single child originates through the male-female union, and every single child is not old enough yet to consent to any alternative family arrangement.

    Therefore no state should be banned from setting apart the male-female union!

  • mintap

    She should not resign.

    It was Kennedy first who forced the “spirituality” of the same-sex pair-bond onto society. This has weakened the relevance of the Court.

  • NeedACleverName

    Some of them are clearly pandering. Others, like Huckabee and Santorum, are open Dominionists.

  • TheAngryFag

    No, he didn’t. He found that the 14th amendment was being violated. While it may coincide with his personal beliefs, that is irrelevant.

    And what “misconduct” did Kagan and Ginsburg supposedly engage in?

  • TheAngryFag

    Unfortunately that is illegal. See, we have this little document call “the Constitution”. In that little document we have things like “separation of Church and State” as well as things like the inability based on sex. So “setting apart the male-female union” is in violation of that. sorry ’bout it.

    Time to move on and join the 20th century.

  • seashell

    We get it. But presumably you would not be doing those things as a private citizen, rather than as an elected government official (especially hiding the stolen goods thing).

    Kim Davis is free to disapprove of same sex marriage as County Clerk as long as she doesn’t convey that to the public while issuing marriage licenses to anyone eligible for one. Why do you not get that?

  • Robert Conner

    Of course you’re a cafeteria Christian, Ann. Or do you believe that any Christian man who can accept it should castrate himself? Here’s what your Savior said he wanted his disciple to do:

    “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:12)

    Have you ever heard a preacher encourage a man to make a eunuch of himself for the kingdom of heaven? Why do Christians choose not to hear what Jesus said at Matthew 19:12?

  • Herm

    … plus she cites her first amendment rights while as a government official denying the first amendment rights of others to pursue their religious beliefs. The Jesus I know doesn’t do that.

  • Ben could probably answer that better than I could. All I can say about it is, that thought had crossed my mind, which is why my hypothetical pacifist holds such extreme beliefs that they feel they cannot even support others who are engaged in violence.

  • JD

    How is equality including marriage discriminatory?

    What is it about LGBTI folks that frightens you so?

  • Chris Garton-Zavesky

    Seashell,
    Would you accept as rational this idea: teachers who work in the Archdiocese of San Francisco are free to have homosexual attractions, but they may not pass such feelings on to their students, nor may they publicly advocate for such things.
    If you would, then your argument about Kim Davis is, at least, more than specious.
    Then we have to sift through why the two cases are different from each other.

  • Jeff Preuss

    Unsurprisingly, you completely missed the point.

  • seashell

    Because the Archdiocese is a religious organization, thus already exempt for religious freedom purposes. If Kim Davis worked for the Archdiocese, she would not be sitting in jail. However, Kim Davis is an elected public official, who was voted into office by taxpayers to conduct public business on their behalf – all of their behalfs. She can’t pick and choose which parts of the official business she will conduct, or which citizens she will serve, based on her religious beliefs and still allow all the taxpayers to pay her full salary.

  • Benji

    No need to move past the opening sentence of Franklin’s nonsensical, infantile logic: >”I’m thankful and proud that Americans are standing up against the evil being forced on us.”

    If having evil “forced” on you, means living in a pluralistic society based on a constitutional democracy containing inherent concepts of liberty, personal autonomy and the civil rights of all people, then may this great “evil” continue to triumph!

  • mintap

    There is no “equal rights” amendment. It was never passed. Radical gender indistinguishablity is anti-scientific and not part of the US Constitution.

    You are on the wrong side of history. The 20th century is over. Progress occurs when policy aligns closer to Nature, not when it aligns with the subjective will of the powerful.

  • TheAngryFag

    In Reed v Reed (1971), SCOTUS held the 14th amendment prohibited sex discrimination when is struck down an Idaho law that favored men.

    No, I’m on the right side of history. I asked you to join the 20th century because asking you to have a rational, reasoned view of the 21st century is too much to ask for and I realize that.

  • seashell

    Progress occurs when policy aligns closer to Nature…

    Care to share an example of a country where this ‘progress’ has occurred because its policies align closer to Nature? In all the classes I’ve taken and books I’ve read on political science, not once have I read about a goal to align policies with Nature when making policy.

  • Ann Smith

    You are right about that. That is why I keep saying that I would resign if I were her. Some other folks here who are on my side are saying that she shouldn’t have to, but… Look, she is in an impossible situation. I cannot see how or why you would or could go against the law, no matter how much it conflicts with your belief system. I don’t need bible verses to to tell me that if you can’t fulfill the duties then you shouldn’t attempt the position. It is like putting a square peg–you get the idea. I personally could not live with myself for collecting a paycheck for sitting in jail. That’s just me. My objections surrounding this discussion are directed at the folks who say she is trying to impose her religion on others or that she should only be a “part-time Christian.”

  • Ann Smith

    Again, I never saw it as her trying to impose anything on anyone else. My view is that she is attempting not have what she feels is immoral behavior foisted upon HER. Again, why fight that battle? What is to be served? I think the Christian thing to do would have been to make a public statement of her beliefs as part of her resignation process. Then take all the money she would have spent on lawyers and feed the homeless with it. I’m serious.

  • Ann Smith

    That is out of context. Jesus was speaking about who should marry and who shouldn’t. My understanding is that he was responding to those who thought that they could not remain faithful to one woman for life. He suggested that they should castrate themselves.

  • Ann Smith

    I am not a cafeteria Christian. I am totally continent sexually, I attend mass at least weekly, I go to confession, I SING IN THE CHOIR… What else do I have to do to show you that I do not pick and choose?

  • Robert Conner

    Oh come on, Ann! What do you know about “context”? Were you there? Did Jesus take you aside and explain it to you privately? Do you think Jesus didn’t know the difference between a man with no wife and a man with no balls? Jesus was talking about getting into heaven, not getting into a marriage.

    Why don’t I ever hear about Christian counselors talking believers into castration? It’s because Christians pick and choose what to take at face value and what to “interpret” so they don’t have to comply.

    When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:22)

    Have you sold everything you have and given it to the poor? Guess not. You’ve got a computer. What would Jesus think? Or do you think your “context” argument is going to cut it come Judgment Day?

  • seashell

    My objections surrounding this discussion are directed at the folks who say she is trying to impose her religion on others…

    Ann, the laws of Kentucky delegate the power of issuing marriage licenses to the County Clerks. When a clerk, acting as the government, uses her power based on her religious beliefs, the bottom line effect is religious tyranny, whether she intends it or not. A nicer way of saying the same thing is that she is imposing her religious beliefs on others, and again, this is true whether she intends to or not.

    Kim Davis can be a full-time Christian as long as she doesn’t act on her religious beliefs while in governmental office, where the net result is either discrimination or failure to perform her duties.

    Tyranny: cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others Merriam-Webster

    ETA: Judge Bunning has released Davis from jail on the condition that she won’t interfere with the deputies issuing licenses.

  • mintap

    umm… you’ve never once read:

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”

    The U.S. was founded on an appeal to Nature and Nature’s God, specifically to secure the rights endowed by our Creator (i.e., Natural Rights).

    The goal of the entire U.S. experiment is to align our policy more perfectly with Natural Law.

  • mintap

    Nothing about the 14th amendment suggest radical gender indistinguishability and banning states from setting apart the male-female union. It was never written with such anti-scientific “spirituality” in mind. Obergefell is one of the most unconstitutional rulings in recent history. We all know this, but some prefer deconstructing the constitution for power instead of following it.

    And both Kagan and Ginsburg where publicly involved in activism and in stating their bias prior to the ruling. The code of conduct says, “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

    http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

  • mintap

    Every single person (100%) of them originate through the male-female union. Setting apart that union is as equitable as a policy could possibly be.

    What is it about children (and their natural family arrangement) that frightens you so? Are you working through personal issues with your biological parents?

  • mintap

    You were sloppy in your communication (and likely thinking as well).

    We all know that this issue has nothing to do with gay people or any sexual orientation and that angle is only brought up for strategic marketing. It is easier to manipulate opinions and emotions if there is a victim class. Words like “hom*phobe” can be employed for shame, etc.

    Really it is only about what arrangements (same-sex, opposite-sex, multiple partners, whatever) should be the arrangements that the state has a legitimate interest in for marriage policy.

    The problem for your side is that where there is more clarity it becomes much clearer how wrong it is to ban states from setting apart the male-female union. Time will bring more clarity (especially through sociological data). You are on the wrong side of history.

  • Snooterpoot

    Vandalism is wrong. Period.

    Mr. Klein put this couple’s address on his facebook page. That was, in my opinion, a deliberate action that invited the cruelty this couple, who did nothing wrong, suffered as a result of this despicable action.

    All the Kleins had to do was follow the law and bake the cake to avoid the outrage they received. They are not victims of anything other than their own intolerance. When business owners refuse to provide their goods and services to those people who are protected by statute, and that refusal is made public, then they richly deserve any lawful action taken against them, even if it causes their businesses to fail.

    I don’t care if Mrs. Klein covered the woman’s face with kisses. She is a bigot because she refused to treat this couple like she would treat any other couple simply because they are lesbians.

  • Jeff Preuss

    “You were sloppy in your communication (and likely thinking as well).”
    Nope.

    Edit: I don’t intend on playing into your bigotry (thinly) disguised as adherence to “natural laws” or whatever you tell yourself it is. You can keep talking to yourself. You aren’t worth my time.

  • TheAngryFag

    Reed v Reed (1971). SCOTUS held that sex discrimination is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

    You fail to realize that Justices Kagan and Ginsberg were already on judicial record before Obergefell. Or did you forget about US v Windsor (2013). Not to mention Ginsberg also was part of the majority in Lawrence v Texas (2003).

    Quit grasping as straws and come up with a rational, real argument. You claim Obergefell is “unconstitutional” but fail to offer a REAL reason why. If you want to live under a government where religion holds sway over the rule of law, then Iran or Saudi Arabia await you. Bon voyage.

  • mintap

    As far as I can tell, an ERA would lead to strict scrutiny. Without it there is only an intermediate scrutiny. My statement that radical gender indistinguishability is not part of the U.S. Constitution still stands.

    See Michael M. v. Superior Court for an example where sex discrimination is valid.

  • mintap

    Oh yeah, “big*try” is one of the other largely meaningless words used by your tribe.

    The thing about Nature is that you will have to deal with it at some point. It will not go away, but petty attempts at deconstructing it will pass. You are on the wrong side of history, thrown in the dustbin with the slaver-masters, eugenicists, and abortionists.

  • mintap

    Obergefell does not pass constitutional muster. Read the dissents. They are unprecedented. Basically four standing Justices are calling out the Court as being unconstitutional and no one should follow the ruling.

  • mintap

    Where is YOUR rational, real argument?

    Look back over your comments here. There is nothing positive for your side. It is all assertion, power grab, more assertion.

    You would have supported Dred Scott in the exact same way.

    The fact remains every single child originates through the male-female union. It is inevitable that as society progresses we will have to deal with this fact. You are on the wrong side of history.

  • TheAngryFag

    Only if the state can provide a valid reason that can pass the intermediate scrutiny test. Mississippi University for Women v Hogan set the standard that the burden of proof is on the purveyor of the restriction to justify it. District Courts all over the country and state judges have struck down these bigoted bans because they do fail intermediate scrutiny. Only one circuit court disagreed, the 6th Circuit, whether they did it because they honestly disagreed with the district judges whose decisions they overruled or because in doing so, SCOTUS would practically be forced to take up the issue once and for all. And really, Windsor was the key issue. Once SCOTUS ruled in her favor that was the death bell for marriage discrimination.

    Not to mention Romer v Evans (1996) opened the door for Sexual Orientation specifically when SCOTUS invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s state consitution which took away legal protections of gays and lesbians finding the amendment “is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single
    trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting
    disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific
    protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.” And it didn’t even rely on Intermediate Scrutiny.

    PS: Michael would never have happened if he had been correctly prosecuted for violate rape considering he forced himself on his victim when she said no to sex.

  • Alana

    Not to mention people like myself who don’t want children at all. By that logic, I should be barred from marriage no matter who my spouse is.

  • Robin

    Coercion is use of power, physical force is not necessarily needed Emotional manipulation especially of close family members is a powerful and coercive force. The only way your stove-metaphor holds up is if you made up a place in the house where you were personally convinced there was a hot stove but no one else could physically observe it and no evidence of actually burning ever took place but any time anyone went near that spot you went nuts telling them not to go near it and if they did terrible things would happen to them and you would tell them how badly they were hurting you by not pretending that the stove is there too. I also find it painfully ironic that you use the metaphor of the stove considering it was one of Nietzsche’s favorite devices. He used the term “burnt children” (rough English translation) to describe people who had been emotionally terrorized by religious dogma, and allowed the fear of promised and imagined supernatural repercussions to limit their thoughts and choices in life.

  • mintap

    So that is some of the legal background. What about the philosophical background?

    Everyone has a mother and a father. It is deep within everyone’s genetics. This fact of human nature is relevant to law. There are real world, tangible differences between the male-female union and any others. We cannot ignore this.

  • Ann Smith

    Again, you are right. What she did has the effect of punishing others but I don’t see it as her primary motive. That could be argued at length, but I just don’t see it quite the way some others do when they say she just wants to hate people. And no, she cannot be a full-time Christian if her job requirements include something that she feels she cannot do based on her firmly held religious beliefs. By asking her not to “act on her religious beliefs” while at work, you are asking her to be a hypocrite. And by the way, her name is pre-printed or rubber-stamped on every marriage license as required by county law, so that is why she demanded that everyone else stop issuing the licenses too.

  • Adam King

    Her motive is irrelevant. Her actions are harming others, and are against the law.

  • Ann Smith

    By “out of context” I was referring to the verses that preceded the ones you quoted. Again, in Luke 18 Jesus was answering a righteous man who was a ruler and very wealthy. That was his advice to one person with whom he was having a conversation. It is still a good example for the rest of us and what is says is that we we will be rewarded in heaven in proportion to what we have given up here on earth. Do you demand that I follow every piece of advice in the bible to the letter? Do you yourself? I drive an old car and my roof leaks. I watch TV off the antenna and get three channels. Oh, and I gave $70 to the church this week as my usual offering. Somewhere else in the bible it says that you are supposed to give to the widows and orphans. So, since I am a widow. how much can I expect you to send me on Friday? Should I let you know where you can mail my check?

  • Ann Smith

    Well, it is relevant to me in that I would like to think of her more as a person with misplaced priorities rather than someone who hates. I am not as emotionally heated over this as some folks who are perhaps closer to the issue.

  • Jo Wi

    I would say she’s less like Rosa Parks and more like the bus driver who wanted Rosa to change seats. If anyone is Rosa Parks in this situation, it is the gay couples seeking equitable treatment from their county clerk.

  • TheAngryFag

    And the wagon circles again…

    Citations plz.

  • Ann Smith

    They published a copy of the court order against them which was already part of the public record.

  • seashell

    I assumed that her name was either pre-printed or rubber stamped, also. Turns out, it’s not. Since Friday, her deputies have issued certificates where they typed in the name of the county where her name would have gone. So the certificate in part reads: …Issued this 9/4/15 in the office of Rowan County, Rowan County County Clerk…

    Here’s a link to the photo: http://qa.dailyflick.com/kentucky-clerks-name-left-off-marriage-licenses-validity-questioned/

  • JD

    “Every single person (100%) of them originate through the male-female union.”

    Duh.

    “Setting apart that union is as equitable as a policy could possibly be.”

    As I said earler: family isnt always blood nor is it solely dependent upon gender. Each family is unique in that sense but all still based upon love and commitment. 

    Setting apart breeding makes no sense nof is it fair.

    Btw, there is no such thing as natural family. I have no problem with any family arrangements as long as they are healthy.

    And you didn’t answer my question: How is equality including marriage discriminatory?

  • JP

    A natural family is one where the man and woman have a baby together.

    Marriage is all about procreation.

    Even unhealthy families are families.

  • JD

    And yet families are made up with all sorts of folks. Thinking adoptions, step parents, etc.

    What you want isn’t s marriage. You want a breeding license.

  • Robert Conner

    The broader context of Jesus’ radical statements is belief in the imminent end of the world, a point discussed at some length in the essay referenced earlier in the thread.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/269575794/Christianity-s-Critics-The-Romans-Meet-Jesus-by-Robert-Conner

    The reason Christians read and interpret Jesus’ words selectively is because taken at face value–which is likely the way Jesus meant them to be taken given his belief in the End–his words make no sense, particularly if the End is not around the corner. The Romans had this pretty much figured out–the Roman critic Porphyry knew there would be no “Rapture” nearly 16 centuries ago.

    If you’re a widowed member of a church and your roof leaks, why isn’t the church pitching in to fix your roof? Just asking.

  • mintap

    At the first stages of life, family is always blood and strictly dependent on gender. This is the natural family. It is such a thing.

    And the freedom of association is already available for any love and commitment any consenting adults of any self-identified orientations can give.

    And “equality including marriage” = arbitrarily including the same-sex pair-bond, but none of the other inherently non-procreative arrangements? And that is supposed to not be discriminatory?

    But you said you have no problem with any family arrangement as long as they are “healthy?” Who measures “healthy?” All healthy children originate through one mother and one father, but you are rejecting that. You want you own version of “health” that has nothing to do with what a human child is.

    Are you willing to follow the sociological data? What will you do if as better data comes out about same-sex parenting it is found that really the most healthy option is for a child to be raised by a mother and father? Would you need to brace yourself for such findings, or are your relying on the LGBTist lobby to cover such data up?

  • mintap
  • TheAngryFag

    No, your “There are real world, tangible differences between the male-female union and any others.” bullshit.

  • Snooterpoot

    Oh, please. How many people would have gone to the trouble of finding that court order on their own initiative?

    Mr. Klein could have either refrained from pitching a hissy fit and not posted the order on his facebook page, or he could have redacted this couple’s personal information before posting it. Had he made either of those choices he wouldn’t be facing an order to pay damages to this couple.

    The Kleins are not victims. They refused to follow the law, and they are paying the consequences.

  • JP

    Same sex “marriage” is not marriage. 5 justices do not have the right to redefine marriage.

  • mintap

    The chromosomes within us are tangible. They are real.

  • seashell

    I suppose you’re aware that, biologically speaking, sexual pair-bonds of both the opposite sex and same sex type occur in human nature? And that sexual pair-bonding, biologically speaking, is not just limited to reproduction purposes?

    It was culture, not nature, that insisted pair-bonds should be opposite sexed, and only culture that attached the idea of romance (or spirituality) to the pair-bond. So if you’re not fond of the culture aspect, like Kennedy’s spirituality, you’ll also have to ditch the insistence on only male-female unions under the pair-bond theory.

    If we’re aligning with nature, the Supreme Court’s decision represents progress, doesn’t it?

  • TheAngryFag

    Obviously words have no meaning to you.

  • seashell

    As it turns out, under the pair-bond theory of human nature, you are right that there no tangible, real world differences between the male-female union and same-sex union. Funny that mintap never mentioned that part. Both occur naturally and are not limited to reproduction purposes.

  • mintap

    We can see new humans that come into existence, and know that they are real, and see that the male-female union really is something very different. Bringing a new human into existence is not just some ordinary human task. No state should be banned from setting apart any kind of union that is that distinct. There is no reason to think such a union is not inherently linked to human rights. It is right there at the beginning of an individuals human rights. It is right there when one is created and their rights are endowed. That is a big deal.

  • JD

    “Same sex “marriage” is not marriage.”

    It is now. Deal with it.

  • JP

    No its not. Many will never accept this nor should you.

  • DirtyMindedNo

    Your use of “civil” and “natural” seems to suggest you don’t have good understanding of either.

    Civil marriage (any form) grants no natural rights. It simply grants governmental (civil) protection, benefits and acknowledgement. Nature has nothing to do with it. Nature provides no rights to any living being. It guarantees nothing. Not even to human children. It doesn’t guarantee birth, nor does it guarantee a family to raise the child.

    Since there are no natural (meaning “of nature”) rights, the states, therefore could never grant them.

    Nature has no need for any form of marriage. It merely requires pair bonding for procreation of the species, once the offspring is birthed, nature grants it no rights. There only needs to a sperm donor and a working uterus for the child to be born. There needn’t be male-female couple for the child to mature. It does require at least one adult to provide for the infant to a certain point, but it needed be a parent.

    If there were no governments, there would be no civil marriages.

    States have been banned from only recognizing opposite-sex marriage as legal. The Supreme Court’s ruling did nothing to reduce the rights offered by the state for children.

    As far as the long-term effects on society you seem to be concerned with, it’s unlikely any more or any less heterosexual or homosexual persons will be born due to this ruling.

    It’s highly possible there could be more opportunities for adoptions of children into these new families.

    It’s unlikely there will be any measurable decline in opposite-sex marriage, though there may be some homosexual people that choose to not “live in the closet” in an opposite-sex marriage, but that is likely to remain a small percent.

    It is also unlikely there will be a measurable spike or drop in the number of children born in the U.S., as gay people have been part of our culture from the nation’s beginning.

    And gay people have always be able to participate in the procreating process. The day before this ruling was issued, gay people were becoming parents. Granted, many had to go a less “traditional” route, but being gay has never stopped parenthood.

    There will be a spike the number of gay people marrying and a huge spike in the number of gay people divorcing.

    Your stance that human nature will last long after the LBGT are gone makes no sense. Gay people have always been a part of the human race. They just didn’t show up recently. As long as there humans around, there will be gay people around.

    You’re continued argument is this thread involves little logic and makes little sense.

  • seashell

    I would agree that it is time for Kim Davis to resign, but she will not allow herself to be forced to approve of something of which she feels she cannot approve. Many Christian religions teach that if you help someone sin, or say that you approve of their sinful behavior, you have sinned as well.

    But if the result is the trampling and demolition of the rights of others, isn’t that an equal or greater sin? Is ‘do unto others’ a choice and not a commandment?

  • JD

    Yes, it is.

    And not only do I accept it I support it as do more and more do everyday.

    Now, you can just deal with that and move on or continue whining. Either way it is still legal.

  • JD

    Studies actually show kids with same sex parents are healthier and happier. Go look it up.

    Face it; you just dont like gay folks. What does that say about you, hm?

    Instead of tilting at this tired and broken down windmill, Don Quixote, why dont you do something more meaningful and helpful; such as supporting equality and ss families instead of trying to tear them apart. Besides, I dont recall Jesus saying anything about being a dick towards gays folks. Quite the opposite, actually.

  • mintap

    “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” JFK

    The U.S. was founded to secure our rights from Nature and Natures God, endowed at our Creation.

    Do some homework first. Here is a more thorough argument that was highly influential in the forming of U.S. law:
    http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1102.htm

    If you think there are no natural rights, then it is all about power. Opposing people and ideas should just be stomped down, exactly what people on ‘your side’ are attempting to do. They don’t argue from reason, but from power,… but there are natural rights.

    I should just stop there, because you getting this wrong–of course your whole approach will be off.

    But let me deal with a few other details:

    “It’s unlikely there will be any measurable decline in opposite-sex marriage”
    We have data from places that have already tried the social experiment, e.g., Netherlands:
    “same-sex marriage leads to a fall in the different-sex
    marriage rate”
    http://www.iza.org/conference_files/TAM2010/trandafir_m6039.pdf

    Check out Sweden, Spain, Massachusetts (which currently has its lowest marriage rate in its history), among other places as well. More data will come. The most recent studies with the best sampling have found same-sex parenting as causing children to fare worse on a host of measures. More research will only add more clarity. Will you dig your heals in and zealously follow the will to power or will you follow where the science leads?

    Let me reiterate that aspect of human nature that is relevant:
    Every single child originates through the male-female union, and every single child is not old enough yet to consent to any alternative family arrangement.

  • mintap

    I looked it up and found this:

    “Of the several dozen extant studies on same-sex
    parenting in the past two decades, only eight have
    used a random sample large enough to find evidence
    of lower well-being for children with same-sex
    parents if it exists. Of these eight, the four most
    recent studies, by Dr. Mark Regnerus, Dr. Douglas
    Allen and two by Dr. Paul Sullins, report substantial
    and pertinent negative outcomes for children with
    same-sex parents. The four earlier studies, by Dr.
    Michael Rosenfeld and three by Dr. Jennifer
    Wainright and colleagues, find no differences for
    children with same-sex parents because, due to
    errors in file coding and analysis, a large portion of
    their samples actually consists of children with
    heterosexual parents. When the sample used by
    Wainright’s three studies is corrected of this error
    and re-analyzed, these data also show negative
    outcomes for children with same-sex parents similar
    to those reported by Regnerus and Sullins.”
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_College_of_Pediatricians.pdf

    You are simply working with the wrong premises. I’m sure your compassion and reason will eventually win out.

  • JD

    Worls’s largest study on same-sex parents finds kids are healthier and happier than peers.

    Same sex marriages and families are now part of everyday life and are here to stay. Do get with the times.

  • Lynn

    I believe she should be fired and not jailed. If she refused to go to work for a month would she not be fired. If not I would like that elected position also.

  • Lynn

    Can a Jewish person be elected to pig inspector and then not do her job because of her religion and still get paid?
    Would it be right to jail her?

  • Lynn

    I see a lot of one father and many mothers, The father does not make enough to support the mothers or provide baby sitting time to any of the mothers leaving a mother to be a single parent. Sometimes with legal marriage on one of the mothers part. There are also Gay couples that responsibly raise families that I have known. Production does not mean automatically responsibility for the product.

  • Lynn

    for what the priests have done in the Catholic church what does the Marriage license matter or the forced keeping the marriage after consummation even if the woman is beaten to a pulp. I have no respect for Catholicism without a real penance of the institutions sins.

  • Andy

    “Sterile people cannot be married in the Catholic church.”

    This is not true. Per Catholic Answers, the Code of Canon Law, section 1084, says:

    “§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of canon 1098.”

    It’s impotent people that the Catholic church will not marry.

  • seashell

    Let’s discuss your sources, mintap. You cited an amicus brief to the Supremes submitted by The American College of Pediatricians, Donald Paul Sullins and Mark Regenerus (among others) that claims studies done by everyone else but them suffers from politicization. You are aware that the ACP has about 200 members, who formed the group to promote family values, not to continue educating and informing pediatricians, like the AAP* with over 60,000 members? That the study done by Mark Regenerus was overwhelmingly rejected by the academy as flawed 3 years ago, including his own university, and that Sullins is a Catholic priest? These are not credible sources on adopted children outcomes.

    Next you give us the Constitution Society. Really? It’s run by a computer consultant and has no constitutional scholars on board.

    And, finally, in your one credible source, The effect of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands, you try to mislead on the conclusion. From p. 30: “…it is impossible to attribute the decline in the marriage rate after 2001 to either the long-term effect of the registered partnership law or to the short-term effect of the same-sex marriage law.”

    When you have to go to the lowlands to follow “the science”, you have not come away informed. You have merely validated your own thoughts.

    AAP = American Academy of Pediatricians

  • Andy

    Exactly. No credible sources suggest what he/she was saying.

  • Andy

    Yes, well, I have twenty college degrees, so that makes me an expert on everything. Tell me, in your vast education, did you ever learn about a logical fallacy called Argument from Authority?

  • Andy

    “Must everyone with religious beliefs which conflict with your word view be a bigot?”

    Of course not. Put that straw man away.

    I’m pretty sure there are over 7 billion people in the world that don’t share my worldview. I probably have very little in common with a few billion of them, in fact. But not all of them are bigots.

    I was going to offer to play a little game to see if you can identify which scenario demonstrates bigotry, but as smart as you are, with as many degrees as you have, such a game would be trivial and condescending.

  • Andy

    Of course they are unprecedented. If there were a precedent for them, they wouldn’t have to rehash something already established. That’s what precedent is.

    Everybody has to follow the ruling, or they are subject to the consequences deemed appropriate. If you don’t like it, tough titties.

  • Andy

    Citation, please.

  • Andy

    Props for “bull pucky”. I haven’t heard that in probably 20 years.

  • Andy

    You say that as if you have some confidence that your ridiculous, archaic worldview will somehow be vindicated by that. It will not, and if you are waiting for that, I hope you’re not holding your breath.

  • cvryder2000

    Rachel Maddow uses it all the time. That’s where I learned it.

  • Ann Smith

    What do you think? And why do you not read each other’s posts? Forgive me but I am getting frustrated at being asked my opinion about this over and over again. Am I that popular that you just love to hear me talk? I have stated like six times already that she should resign. Please quit posing ridiculous scenarios or go ask someone else maybe.

  • Ann Smith

    I will consider myself corrected. And this supports what I said about old people being allowed to marry. What I understand from all of this is that the couple must be able to perform vaginal sex.

  • Croquet_Player

    Her reasons for not doing her job are ultimately irrelevant to the issue. She can either do her job, or resign.

  • Andy

    I’m not Catholic, but from what I read, I believe that is correct.

  • seashell

    5 justices do not have the right to redefine marriage.

    Another way to look at it is that only 4 justices think SSM is wrong.

  • mintap

    “The self-selection of our convenience sample has the potential to
    introduce bias that could distort results. It is clear that
    the families from the ACHESS are earning more and are
    better educated than the general population.”
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-635.pdf

    Participants for the study were recruited through LGBT mailing lists and ads posted in LGBT magazines.

    The study also uses parent-reporting on child health. This is very problematic, especially for such a well known political issue.

    These throw serious doubt into the conclusions. Studies that don’t have such poor sampling methodology, like those of Regnerus, Allen, or Sullins come to a less biased conclusion.

    More and more we should get random sampling and data that does not rely on parent reporting. This will much more accurately show us what is really happening. Are you willing to follow those studies as more of them come in?

  • mintap

    Society and government policy has not been good enough at promoting the one male one female arrangement. If there was a way to better incentivize a father being committed to a mother and both together to whatever offspring they could potentially have, then maybe you’ll see less of those kinds of fathers you describe.

    Is the answer really to remove the institution and unique incentive to bind a mother to a father?

  • mintap

    That is just a bunch of ad hominems.

    What about the actually studies and specifically the sampling methodology?

    Maybe we are in such a politicized time that really only the Catholic-friendly or family-friendly scholars will use large random samples, I don’t know.

    When studies use parent-reported data specifically from parents recruited from LGBT-friendly mailing lists and publications we can be pretty sure a bunch of activists will sign up and add bias.

    And what did Regenerus’ university really say? He was vindicated:
    http://news.utexas.edu/2012/08/29/regnerus_scientific_misconduct_inquiry_completed

    And unlike many of the other studies, he made his data publicly available. Anyone can check the results.

    Regarding the study of the Netherlands, read the context of what you quoted. It was regarding the overlap of the registered partnership law and the same-sex marriage law, and saying it is hard to tell which one is the cause. It doesn’t matter much to my argument. I think that both are problematic.

    There is much more data out there. The marriage rate has declined in many places, and out of wedlock birth rates have risen too.

  • JD

    Are you willing to follow the law?

    Gay marriage is legal with every right as any other marriage. That includes family. Period.

    World War Gay is over. Love Wins.

    If you dont like just keep your hatred to yourself. No one needs or wants it.

  • mintap

    I wouldn’t have liked Dred Scott either.

  • mintap

    My view is that:

    Every single child originates through the male-female union, and every single child is not old enough yet to consent to any alternative family arrangement. No state should be banned from setting apart the male-female union as a means to secure the rights of children.

    Will we see data that shows the negative effects of violating children’s natural rights?

    Every time researchers have used large random samples it has shown this so far. There is a pattern. Data like this, while not the reason to secure children’s natural rights, may be the means to sway the popular opinion to achieve this.

  • mintap

    Laws change. Some laws will need to change as better data comes in.

    I’m thinking compassion for children’s rights and reason will win.

  • JD

    The only laws that will change will be any that discriminates against the LBGTI community.

    Give it up, bub. Love won.

    Your hatred lost.

  • Ed

    Then get yourself elected

  • Proud Amelekite

    [My objections surrounding this discussion are directed at the folks who say she is trying to impose her religion on others or that she should only be a “part-time Christian.”]

    From what I have read, she had forbidden other clerks beneath her from issuing these licenses as well. That is where the issue of forcing her religion comes in to play. It is also indirectly forced by the fact that she collects a paycheck paid with tax money. By collecting taxes paid by LGBT people then not serving them she is, in essence, stealing from other people. That is a big issue as well and can be construed as imposing her religious views (though more specious in reasoning than the first reason I gave).

  • Proud Amelekite

    For those curious in understanding the thinking of people like mintap, Huckabee, and other conservative religious types, I suggest Googling the book, “The Authoritarians” by Professor Bob Altemeyer.

    For example: This person posted something along the lines of “let’s follow the science” and then claimed conspiracy and unfair treatment by the scientific community in a followup post when confronted with actual science. The antigay side routinely uses poor science to argue their point. Case in point, mintap posts an article meant to prove that the Regnerus study was good. This rebuttal came from 2008. I offer the following article from 2015 in rebuttal to that:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/

    If they respond to this, it will be with a strawman or an appeal to conspiracy: that the scientific community has a vested interest or that, somehow, 3 to 5% of the population has an iron clad grip on it and is hiding the “real science”. You see the same with Evolution and the creative remembering and co-opting of Civil Rights.

    What you are seeing is Right Wing Authoritarianism in action. Have fun arguing but don’t get upset at the obstinence and unwillingness to see reason in people like these: it is a mental illness. It isn’t intellectual dishonesty or malice, but a lack of critical thinking.

  • Proud Amelekite

    But you who won’t accept it will grow old and die and your kids will accept it. You can’t live forever, nor can your hatred.

  • Ann Smith

    Her signature appears on every license. No one else’s.

  • Ann Smith

    I have yet to hear one lgbt supporter admit that some folks with deeply held religious beliefs might not be bigots. By saying of course not can I assume that you might be the first? All I want is for someone to validate that a person can follow the church’s teachings about hate no one and still follow other teachings about personal sexual behavior. What the gays don’t like is when we describe our beliefs to others. All I seem to get is the knee-jerk answer that we are ALL bigots. They don’t know my heart. The last thing is that we also are not allowed to profess
    to others that sinful behavior is OK.

  • Andy

    Fine. Not all folks with deeply held religious beliefs are bigots. There, now you have now heard one supporter say it. And I have no problem saying that. I know a lot of people that are very religious, but are not bigots. Not all people who claim to have “deeply held” beliefs* are bigoted, but some are.

    And you don’t appear to have the same definition of “love” as I do. As far as I’m concerned, loving someone does not mean you demand that a person change to fit with your particular interpretation of scripture. Loving someone does not mean you think it’s okay to deny a person rights they have been granted by the law of the land. Loving someone does not mean it’s okay to shirk your duty as an elected official of government** just so you can deny someone rights because you don’t happen to approve of people who are just trying to be themselves, which is hard enough already in this world without bigots making it worse.

    *This is a dumb phrase if you ask me; who’s to say that my beliefs aren’t deeply held? Do you think I arrived at my conclusions frivolously? No, it took years for my current worldview to arrive where it is now, and it continues to evolve. And I dare say, I’ve studied the bible a lot more than a lot of people who claim to hold “deeply held” beliefs.

    **Consider Numbers 30:2, “If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.” I don’t know the text of the oath Kim Davis swore when she took office as county clerk, but if she in fact swore to perform her job, and especially if she said something to the effect of “so help me God” as so many oaths do, she violated that commandment. So much for her piety.

  • Andy

    If you don’t like it, tough titties.

  • mintap

    I also don’t like slavery, genocide, eugenics or abortion.

  • mintap

    All you have is power. Power fades.

    Compassion and reason will win.

  • Andy

    Slavery and genocide are illegal in the U.S., so those are irrelevant. Eugenics is supposed to be. Abortion is not, though, so if you don’t like it, tough titties.

  • JP

    The fact of the matter was that this ruling was not based on the Constitution or laws. The court does not have the power to make laws. They should have refused this case until Congress makes it law. This is why these judges are lawless. To put it mildly it was a silly ruling that helped to create pseudo marriages.

  • mintap

    That is classic ad hominem. You are trying to look at psychology behind the statements, and not just looking at the statements. Did you actually look at the study from the Salon article that claimed to be the “world’s largest study on same-sex parenting.”

    The recruitment for survey participants was through LGBT mailing lists and publications, and it relies on parent-reporting. Can you see any problem with such non-random sampling? The study itself reveals this potential for bias.
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-635.pdf

    And look at the Washington Post article you cite. They specifically say,
    “The validity of research inferences is particularly challenging for studies that focus on a very small group of interest… When research findings from these analyses are used as policy guidelines, the threat goes even beyond scientific communities.”

    But, this is exactly what happened. The APA and AAP specifically refer to some very questionable studies to come up with policy guidelines. There are surveys that have found, “strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted.”
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

    Regnerus’ research too has some limitations, which many critics legitimately point out, and he recognizes as well. But like how all science is process, it follows a pattern that others who have used random samples, like Allen and Sullin, have found. The response is not to favor studies with even worse methodology, but to do more research with random sampling. Let’s see if even better studies follow the pattern as well, but this is not what the politically biased critics are suggesting. The newer studies that they are trumpeting as silver bullets have far worse problems than Regnerus’.

    You may be onto something that authoritarianism is a mental illness. People like me who don’t want 5 people on a Court to decide marriage policy for everyone, imposing the “spirituality” of the same-sex pair-bond onto secular states, prefer less authoritarianism. We would prefer decentralization, and states to have the freedom to decide their own policy. Altermeyer says, “[Authoritarianism] happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want.”

    I don’t submit or trust those on the Court, and I don’t give them too much leeway to do whatever they want. I think people like Kim Davis standing up against Authoritarianism is part of checks and balances and is healthy for society.

  • mintap

    It is curious that before the ban on setting apart the male-female union was in effect, people like you are all like, “Change the laws!” And now that it is in effect they are like, “The law is final!”

  • Pennybird

    What I find astonishing (well, no, more like typical, if I’m to be honest with myself) is that the Kim Davis tantrum occurred at the same time the news of the Syrian refugee crisis was unfolding on all the news channels. And gay marriage is what Ms. Davis and her enablers deem to be evil?

  • JD

    “Compassion and reason will win.”

    Exactly. That is why we now have full equality including marriage for the LBGTI community.

    Love always wins

  • Pennybird

    Ann, how is her position impossible? She has prioritized her religion over her professional duty, and that is okay, except she needs to go the distance and resign, as you say. The only thing making this more complicated for her is that nice salary she is apparently unwilling to give up. But there’s nothing impossible. It’s a simple choice.

  • Jeff Preuss

    “The fact of the matter was that this ruling was not based on the Constitution”
    That may be your opinion, but it isn’t actually fact.

    “[T]he Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Wikipedia

    “Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution…This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. ” Actual Obergefell text.

    “The five-to-four decision was based firmly on the Constitution, and thus
    could be undone only by a formal amendment to the basic document, or a
    change of mind by a future Supreme Court. Neither is predictable.”
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-marriage-now-open-to-same-sex-couples/

  • Pennybird

    So much for their usual law & order stance.

  • Pennybird

    mintap, how is the policy unjust? Either one enters into a gay marriage or not and no one is required to do one over the other. A public official is required to carry out the dictates of the law. If this is a violation of her conscience, then she must leave the job because federal law takes precedence over her conscience. Federal law allows gay marriage. If she doesn’t like gay marriage she doesn’t need to add one to her lengthy list of marriages and everyone wins.

  • JD

    So, marriage is nothing more than a breeding license.

    Got it.

  • Ann Smith

    I will not demand that anyone change to fit my interpretation of scripture. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church commands that we must never force our religion on others. Things just get complicated when a person swears two different oaths that conflict with one another. Taking a vow to the Lord needs to come before a vow to the government if the two conflict. So if Kim Davis swore an oath to the government, even if she invoked the Lord’s name while swearing it, she needs to rescind her position. As I said to Lynn yesterday, I have already stated like six times that she should have resigned. This makes seven. Why has no one heard me so far? I am getting worn out repeating myself! If I quit responding after today it is because I think it is neurotic to keep repeating a behavior expecting a new result when previous attempts have not resulted in anything but the same old thing. For the last time, she should have resigned!

  • Ann Smith

    It is impossible, at least for Ms. Davis with the beliefs that she professes. How can she serve both God and the government when what each one asks is in direct conflict with the other? She is in an impossible situation. She cannot stay in her job and be as conflicted as she is. She would either need to renounce her religion (at least during work which would make her a hypocrite) or resign. That’s what I meant for impossible. It is impossible for her.

  • Ann Smith

    Not at all. Marriage is a gift. It is God’s plan for males and females. They are to love and support one another as they go about the business of creating their families. They are encouraged to give each other pleasure in the marital “embrace” as we euphemistically refer to it. If sex is fun, then the couple will do it often! It is just that the church makes them swear when they take their vows to welcome children to the marriage. So that cuts out artificial contraception, abortion and the depositing of sperm outside the vagina.
    Now, the government’s traditional interest in licensing unions, at least the way I understand it, is to insure clarity of parentage. This is so that fathers fulfill their material obligations to their families and that the children born into these unions can have clear legal claims to their inheritances. You might argue that childless couples need to have widow’s/widower’s rights, and I get that. But people can will their possessions to others without needing to marry them. Where I get stuck is when people of the same sex demand all the spousal benefits afforded by the government when these benefits were intended for people who were about the business of bringing children into the world. There are exceptions, but marriage in these terms was the general rule before now. I really do care about you guys and am not trying to be fresh or nasty. I have learned very many things this summer and I am glad we have all turned over these things in our minds.

  • JD

    1. The church is not nor is any religion the law in this land.

    2. By law same-sex couples have the same rights as straight couples.

    3. You may love ‘us’ but you still don’t want to give ‘us’ equal rights.

    You have absolutely no idea how much of a hypocrite you really are.

  • Proud Amelekite

    One of the hallmarks of the Right Wing Authoritarian Follower is compartmentalized thinking and projection. In the last two paragraphs, you see mintap use projection and logic twisting to try and claim that they and Kim Davis are actually the heroes and it is actually those fighting for marriage equality that are forcing their views on everyone else. SCOTUS has extended the 14th Amendment to cover LGBT people – something well within their right as the most powerful judicial body in the United States. This has no ill effect on straight couples or society, as is evidenced by Canada having this same right for fifteen years.

    These delusions of tyranny are another hallmark of the poster’s condition. They likely feel attacked on all sides, look forward to a future where Jesus or some other magical hero figure puts it all right and vindicates them against the “evil out groups” , and lives a life ruled by terror over a loss of their freedom – how many times have we seen these people lament the loss of their ability to express their religious convictions in comboxes like this, allowed to speak freely yet bemoaning phantom persecution?

    Kim Davis is stealing money from the tax payer (including LGBT tax payers) and actively stopping other clerks in her building from giving licenses. Yet she is the one being persecuted?

    Right Wing Authoritarianism is a mental illness.

  • Cassie Devereaux

    The focus is “on the gays” insomuch as their legal rights are being suppressed. It doesn’t come out of thin air, it’s part of an ongoing story. What she’s feeling is a matter between her and God. That she failed to perform her job duties when instructed by the courts is the story.

    Frankly, I agree that she shouldn’t be compelled to do something she has religious objections to. However, there are many ways to accomplish this without violating the oaths one took upon taking office. Breaking oaths, too, is not generally smiled upon in the bible. (Numbers 30:2)

    Resignation is one possibility, to be sure. Frankly, I have no problem with her name being taken off of the certificates. I respect her sincere convictions, and don’t want to violate them. But accommodation is a two way street…. it’s not just one side that has to give a little. One person’s objections isn’t sufficient cause to deny the rights of the entire county’s residents, even if they are sincere.

  • Cassie Devereaux

    How does one “pass on” a feeling, homosexual or otherwise? Emotions aren’t viruses.

  • Cassie Devereaux

    I disagreed with you above, but I agree with you here. If my job required something of me that my faith deemed immoral, that would be a very difficult situation. One cannot serve two masters.

  • Cassie Devereaux

    In fairness…. and I do think Ms. Davis is a bigot…. but it’s an imperfect analogy. At the time she ran and was elected, her convictions were not in conflict with her duties. It’s more along the lines of a Jewish person being elected to inspect chickens, then during their tenure their job was expanded to include pigs.

    Not to say I agree with Ms. Davis one iota. But to be fair, she didn’t run for a job that would conflict with her beliefs. Her job requirements were expanded. Rightfully so, but still. That’s a more accurate analogy.

  • Ann Smith

    I’m trying so hard not to say, “silly goose!” Of course I understand the law. But I don’t have to like it. I might be against the Iran nuke deal, abortion, or the right to drive at 65 mph. As soon as I say that my religion has something to do with it I am automatically a hypocrite! SMH. I can’t stop you from having equal rights. You already have them. If I don’t want you to have them, what are you going to do, call the thought police? I love my kids but I don’t want them to have everything allowed by law either. Certain stuff is bad for you. Like Miley Cyrus! Lol! Don’t be so bitter. I am entitled to my opinions.

  • mintap

    States are banned from setting apart the male-female union. That is the only arrangement that children originate through. That is the context of the beginning of each individuals rights. Treating such an arrangement exactly the same as other arrangements is effectively diminishing the significance and security of human rights, particularly for those not old enough to consent.

    Laws can change. Laws based on bad rulings and counter to natural rights and the best scientific data should change.

    You would have cheered on those following the implications of the Dred Scott ruling as well, right?

  • mintap

    Oh, I get it. You are using projection, especially in your claim that I am using projection. That is classic projection. It is known as the “smelt-it-dealt-it” rule.

    I am quite progressive, and favor the best science out there, but the problem for you is I am not of the more authoritarian type. I reject subjective opinions of the authorities, those that you may want to force onto everyone.

    If we look at the data (without any bias) we see in places that have been banned from setting apart the male-female union, that marriage rates have declined and out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen. You bring up Canada, which has the lowest marriage rate it has ever had:
    http://well-being.esdc.gc.ca/misme-iowb/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=78

    And out-of-wedlock birth has been on the rise:
    http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/famil/anlsc-elnej/p2_01.html

    So you have delusions of tyranny about Kim Davis (some rural small country clerk). You feel attacked by her? You are terrified she will take away your freedom? Yeah, it seems like projection.

    No state should be banned from setting apart whatever arrangement every single child originates through. As society progresses, inevitably we’ll align our policy more with Natural Law, we’ll follow science (especially the research with the best methodology), and we’ll follow compassion for the weakest amongst us. Authoritarian systems of slavery, eugenics, abortion, and marriage deconstructionism are on the wrong side of history.

  • Snooterpoot

    That is an inaccurate statement, Ann. Here’s what I found quite easily when I searched on marriage in the Catholic Church when a partner is infertile:

    http://goo.gl/9io6Dx

  • seashell

    Are they just pandering, or actually ignorant of how our government works.

    Vox published an article explaining that Huckabee, at least, literally doesn't understand the 14th Amendment.

    1. Huckabee believes the Dred Scott decision still stands, not knowing that it was overturned by the 14th Amendment.

    2. Huckabee wants to know under what statue the federal government can claim same sex marriage is legal. Again, he misunderstands the Supremes decision (along with some commenters in this forum), which was based on both the equal rights and due process clauses of the 14th Amend. This is the same amendment that was used in the inter-racial marriage case Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

    You’re right. It’s unacceptable to be so clueless.

  • seashell

    Apparently, the law part escapes them completely. Especially Huckabee.

  • Ann Smith

    Thank you. I was corrected yesterday by Andy. You are correct as well.

  • seashell

    You bring up Canada, which has the lowest marriage rate it has ever had … And out-of-wedlock birth has been on the rise

    And the same is true of the US, except that gay marriage wasn’t legal throughout that time, except in a few states.

    So lets take Kentucky, with no SSM and Massachusetts, with SSM since 2003. In 1990 the marriage rate in Kentucky was 13.5/1000 pop. In 2000 it was 9.8 and in 2009 7.6. In comparison, the Massachusetts rate was 7.9, 5.8 and 5.5 respectively. For the US as a whole, 9.9, 8.3, 6.8 respectively. Notice the much sharper and steeper drop is in Kentucky, not Massachusetts.

    As the saying goes – correlation does not imply causation. Whatever ails the Canadian marriage rate also ails the US rate, but we can say that SSM didn’t cause the drops.

    We can also say that SSM didn’t cause an upswing in nonmarital childbirth in the US, which has actually decreased slightly from its peak in 2009 at 41% to 2013’s 40.7%.

  • JD

    If you try to force others to abide by your deeply held religious beliefs (such as trying to keep gays from marrying and having a family) then yes, you are a bigot.

    What you dont get is that your deeply held religious beliefs only apply to you. You do NOT get to force others to abide by your beliefs.

    Cant make that much simpler.

    And now that you know this; are you a being bigoted?

  • Lynn

    I have no problem with the institution. I have a problem with a committed gay couple with children not being allowed to participate when they will care for each other and the children which is what I believe the institution was intended for in the first place and why we allow 70 year old couples to marry.

  • Meepestos

    I suspect there are many factors for the lowest marriage rate. In my day, most couples were pressured to get married when a pregnancy occurred; in some cultures of newcomers, arranged marriages were common; and many married shortly after graduating from high school or college.

  • Investigator

    @ Benjamin

    “Let’s say, for argument sake, that same sex marriage is a sin.”

    What do you mean, for argument’s sake? You pose the question as if the answer isn’t settled. Just where do you personally stand on the issue of homosexual marriage?

  • Investigator

    “No one is forcing her to divorce her 4th husband and marry a woman…”

    Did you think that little addition above was respectful or necessary?

  • Investigator

    “Others, like Huckabee and Santorum, are open Dominionists.”

    What is your evidence for that?

  • Walternator

    Huckabee just said the other day ” “Well, the courts have spoken and it’s an important voice, but it’s not the voice of God and the Supreme Court isn’t God” and suggested that people should just ignore rulings contrary to God’s Laws. I’d say that was pretty openly dominionist.

  • Walternator
  • Ann Smith

    No.

  • NeedACleverName

    Seriously? How about Huckabee saying that the U.S. Constitution should be changed to more closely follow the Bible? Or Santorum criticizing Obama’s policies as “not Biblical”?

  • Pat L

    True, noting that it’s her fourth wasn’t necessary, but the sentence as a whole was an important point. However that is only disrespectful if you consider divorce and remarriage shameful. So yes, a Christian might feel it was disrespectful to point out the hypocrisy of throwing stones from a glass house.

  • mintap

    And the same is true of the US, except that gay marriage wasn’t legal throughout that time, except in a few states.

    Where did I say “gay marriage” was the issue? I specifically said neglecting to “set apart the male-female union” is the issue. My claim is that places that have neglected doing this well have experienced negative results, i.e. decline of marriage rate, increase in out of wedlock births, etc.

    Kentucky didn’t get an amendment setting apart the male-female union until 2004, and divorce policy hadn’t yet been reformed yet.

    SSM is a symptom (and a greater cause) of society not setting apart the male-female union enough. I am quite progressive on this issue. I don’t want to go backwards to times when there were no marriage amendments and divorce policy was focused on the whims of individuals instead of family and children. I want to move forward to a time where our policy better aligns with universal Natural Law, and human rights/children’s rights. Kentucky was starting to set up some structure as a precursor to making progress in this, but the Court has now banned them from doing this, setting them back.

  • mintap

    How could we set apart whatever arrangement all children originate through and at the same time include any other arrangement (e.g., the same sex couple) on equal terms? Those are mutually exclusive.

  • seashell

    Meepestos! Good to ‘see’ you again. The US has pockets and rural areas where ‘in your day’ is today, but for the most part, people are choosing later marriages or no marriage at all, regardless of pressure to do otherwise. Progress!

  • gimpi1

    Yes, there is. Our societal consensus that slavery is wrong. I would point out that a belief in natural law did not stop us from being formed as a slave-state in the first place, nor did it end slavery. A developing social consensus that it was wrong did that. In the case of the U.S. it took a civil war.

  • gimpi1

    The Declaration is a document stating reasons for succession. It’s not a legal document at all. The Constitution is where our rights are spelled out, and they have changed over the years, as our views have evolved. For instance, as a woman, I couldn’t vote until the 1920’s. I couldn’t own property until the mid 1800’s. I couldn’t file for divorce either. Up till the 1970’s, I could legally be discriminated against in employment. There’s apparently no “natural rights” for women, yet I can vote, work, own property, inherit and divorce my husband. Because rights are established by society with laws.

  • gimpi1

    And, while the Catholic church is fully within it’s right to refuse to marry sterile people, the state fully recognizes marriages involving sterile people, such as mine. The Catholic church does not get to void my marriage. They don’t get to void the marriages of divorced or gay people, either. That’s what living under civil rather than religious law means.

    Separation of church and state. It’s a beautiful thing.

  • gimpi1

    In the past, marriage was mostly about property rights. Wives were property, and could be beaten or abused. Children were property. Men didn’t want to spend their resources raising another man’s child, so rigid rules were in place keeping women from any infidelity, while those rules were either not present or ignored for men. Most marriages were arranged by parents, with the couple having little or no say in their marriage. Marriage granted property (inheritance) rights to “legitimate” (born in wedlock) sons (not daughters, unless there were no sons). It allowed things like fifes or titles to be passed along. Most people could not divorce. Women, in particular, couldn’t divorce. Most of that is long-gone, and I, for one, do not want it back.

    Children born out of wedlock are not regarded as second-class citizens. Wives are not their husbands property. Fidelity is expected of both parties in most marriages. Domestic abuse is illegal. So is forced marriage. Divorce is legal.

    Most marriages today are voluntary egalitarian partnerships that people choose. They marry for companionship, support and love. They may or may not choose to have children – assuming they can. Some can’t. They may choose to adopt children – even if fertile. They can also choose to end their marriage if it doesn’t work out. All these rights are relatively new. None are part of what most people refer to as “Biblical marriage.” Yet, for the most part, they have made life more free, happy and fulfilling.

    The marriage-equity movement is just the latest change in the ongoing evolution of marriage. In my view, it’s no more threatening than ending forced marriage or making domestic violence a crime.

  • gimpi1

    You are entitled to your opinions. However, if your opinion is that some people should have rights that should be denied to others, that opinion becomes a problem if you want it enshrined in law. For example, there are still many people who don’t think interracial marriage isn’t right. (Really, there are. They often cite the same “natural law” bullcrap that was being discussed upthread.) They have the right to that view. However, they do not have the right to have their opinion enshrined in law, because people have the right to marry who they choose.

    In other words, you can believe anything you desire, but you can’t expect society to give your beliefs force of law. Do you want to?

  • seashell

    I want to move forward to a time where our policy better aligns with universal Natural Law, and human rights/children’s rights.

    Here’s the thing, mintap: Studies show that the best predictors for child outcomes are stability and enhanced socioeconomic circumstances, This holds for biological parents, adopted kids, SSM or OSM. Human/children’s rights are biologically aligned under certain conditions, conditions that aren’t always present. You can’t force the issue.

    You’re about as progressive as a turtle walking backwards and you follow science like a Republican.

  • gimpi1

    Because they really believe that “Christian nation” dogma. They think that the Bible is the highest law of the land, never mind that it’s not mentioned in the constitution at all, or that at least one of the ten commandments (thou shalt have no other God) is unconstitutional.

    It’s amazing what people can convince themselves of.

  • jtshaw

    Her signature attests that the two people named on the license meet the requirements of the civil law to register as a married couple and to engage in the associated obligations and privileges. Her opinion, religiously motivated or otherwise, as to the moral quality or merit of their relationship is utterly irrelevant. Her signature speaks nothing to her personal opinion, and thus her claim of affront to her religious liberty is false.

    She swore an oath to carry out the duties of her elected position, and she should do so or resign.

  • gimpi1

    Actually, slavery was supported by many Christians. The Southern Baptist denomination came into being because they spilt over slavery. The supporters of slavery often cited the Bible as a basis for slavery. Now, there were many Christians that also opposed slavery. The Abolition movement was heavily Christian – with many denominations supporting it – Quakers especially. However, there was no Christian consensus on slavery.

    I think you have to decide on wether actions are right or wrong by their outcomes. Those that used Christian beliefs to support slavery were wrong, because their actions supported an unjust and evil system. Those that used Christian belief to oppose it were right, because they helped to end that injustice and evil. But, both were Christian. You can’t decide the value of their actions by who’s name they took those actions in.

  • gimpi1

    I agree. The correct way to engage in civil disobedience is to take your action in a way that neither drags the unwilling into your action or evades consequences for it. Ms. Davis’s actions have dragged both her co-workers and the state in her wake, and she is complaining about the consequences. Resigning, with a very public statement of why she felt forced to take that step, would have been an honest act of non-cooperation.

  • gimpi1

    What Seashell said. Your actions as a private citizen are yours, and you have every right to your beliefs. However, as a governmental official, you must follow the law, even if you disagree with it.

    Remember, in the civil rights movement, many people honestly and sincerely believed that white dominance was God-ordained and that an equal society without discrimination was against God’s will. Now, most of us today think that’s goofy as snake-shoes, but in the 1940’s and 50’s it was a common belief.

    Now, as we passed anti-disrcimination laws, voting-rights laws and such, the officials with the above-described beliefs didn’t evaporate. They still believed that interracial marriage or black people voting or whatever was wrong. However, they had an obligation to uphold the law. They could resign their jobs, or they could back-burner their beliefs and sign the marriage-license or voter-registration card.

    That’s the choice I see Ms. Davis as facing. Her views are no longer reflected in law. She either needs to back-burner her views, or if she believes that doing so would be wrong, to step down from her position.

  • JD

    Do you fully support full equality for the LGBTI community including marriage and family?

  • Meepestos

    Likewise.

    It’s been a trying summer and it is good to be back.

    Cheers.

  • mintap

    What studies? Citations? We should follow science.

    This article cites a bunch of studies to consider as well:
    http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/30-years-of-research-that-tells-us-a-child-deserves-a-mother-and-a-father/

    Human/children’s right are biologically aligned under certain conditions, conditions that aren’t always present.

    Yes, of course things can happen and children can lose their mother and father.

    Such conditions do not mean we throw out all other rights. They mean we should be especially careful about securing the other rights that children have. They all originate through the male-female union, even if the specific parents have been lost, this is not irrelevant. Adoption policy can have this in mind. Progress can be in moving adoption policy more towards getting more children into whatever family arrangement they are naturally associated with, unless they are old enough to consent otherwise.

    And just because you personally don’t like what I have defended as the best kind of progress, does not mean I am not progressive.

  • Falken

    What would be the purpose of setting OSM aside or above? That would imply inequal and we’d be right back to where we were before Oberfell. Yes, these kids in the system come from heterosexual relations, problem is they are in the system because they were unwanted by either parent or because both parents died and other family members either chose not to/were unable to step in. Actually ask kids in the system if they really give two bits if both parents are the same gender, because it seems all the people who presume there’s some inherent harm or flaw with having anything but parents in a heterosexual relationship seem to forget to ask the people who would actually be in the situation.

    Two, your source is so heavily biased it’s unfunny. It holds no attempt to present any opinion or viewpoint outside of what it already wants to push, so the numbers are highly flawed and likely to come from the same discredited study used by other anti-gay rights groups when it comes to both marriage and parenting. Kindly find something reputable.

  • Falken

    It feels like you want her priorities to be simply “misplaced” rather than be labeled as bigotry or hatred – despite the fact to those she did it to it felt very much so – because you empathize with her. People can believe what they wish, that is most definitely their right. They can say what they wish as well, just be aware that there are consequences to it be it positive or negative.

  • Falken

    I think he stands for it, since he doesn’t stand for the woman who feels compelled to fight it.

  • Falken

    Here’s what’s wrong with this thought: it predicates a fallacy that each individual, group, branch, or segment has it one hundred percent right. The fact Christianity has so many branches means everyone’s either partly right or partly wrong. Why is it the licenses for marriage is “helping someone sin” but nothing else? Why isn’t selling food to someone obese or just gluttonous not helping with the sin of gluttony? Why aren’t gun licenses, ammunition sales, and weapon sales considered just as bad as helping someone murder? What about selling the poison someone uses, even if it’s a household product? Why is it all of these things are placed to blame entirely on the person committing the act but somehow baking a cake or giving a license is party to the act as well?

  • Ann Smith

    Exactly. And God will judge us all one day.

  • seashell

    It sounds like Kim’s impossible situation has been resolved. The licenses issued by the deputy have gone out without her name, and according to the KY Attorney General and the county attorney, the licenses are valid.

    This is a win for both sides. Kim’s name is not on the licenses nor is she directly issuing them, and eligible couples for KY marriage licenses can get them.

  • seashell

    I think he stands with love on the (non)issue . This is how he signed off on a post the day SSM became legal:

    And a big congratulations to my LGBTQ brothers and sisters who have longed to be equal under the law, and now are. Today, I celebrate with you.

  • seashell

    Just about all them state that family stability and socioeconomic conditions are the major factors in well-being outcomes. The Am. Sociological Association, where Paul Amato is the president of the Family Section:

    We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures… Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability. – See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/reassessment-effects-same-sex-parents-childrens-adult-outcomes (emphasis mine)

    See Paul Amato’s explanation of his role and conclusions in the Regenerus study here.

    And for the studies on SSM recommended by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, which was named by the American Library Association as the web’s best reference site, see
    Same-sex marriage and big research questions behind the debate: Useful studies.

  • mintap

    Human Nature has already set the male-female union apart. It is the only arrangement that brings new humans into existence. All human originate through it. And moreover that is the context of when and where human rights for every individual begins. That is a pretty big deal. The U.S. was instituted to secure the rights endowed at our creation. Setting apart that context is exactly in line with the purpose of the nation.

    Actually ask kids in the system if they really give two bits if both parents are the same gender

    Sure, and if they are old enough to consent to alternative arrangements, they have that right.

    And a bunch have spoken up (at great risk to themselves) about it:
    Heather Barwick:
    http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/
    Katy Faust:
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370
    Robert Oscar Lopez:
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/
    Denise Shick:
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14661/
    Dawn Stefanowicz:
    http://www.amazon.com/Out-Under-Impact-Homosexual-Parenting/dp/1599770113

    Two, the article I linked to simply lists a bunch of citations to peer-review papers. Go look at those studies themselves.

  • Walternator

    Do you think adulteresses are worthy of respect?

  • mintap

    Your first link does not include that quote.

    And even someone who is clearly an ideologue in favor of SSM like Paul Amato is very critical of the left-wing response to the Regnerus research, and he admits that the study does show a bunch of problems for “young adults of gay or lesbian parents.” But then he makes the dubious and unjustified step of claiming that all of the problems are probably due to “restrictive social milieus.” That is pure speculation, but it can be checked. See if places with high acceptance of homosexuality have similar levels of problems. For example, we see suicide rates are high and rising even in supposedly gay-friendly places like San Francisco:
    http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/attempted-suicide-rates-among-sfs-lgbt-youth-could-grow-advocates-say/Content?oid=2461846

    And you also cite a source that say that “better data and more research continue to be needed… to derive stronger conclusions on a variety of questions.” Yet you are making a much more absolute claim.

    If I were in favor of banning states from setting apart the male-female union I would be very worried about the better data that will be coming out. And expect a lot more of the left-wing approach that Amato is so critical of.

  • Investigator

    Sorry to hear it. Will it be a (non) issue when the polygamists ride the homosexuals’ coattails? Will it be an issue if groups of people wish to be joined as one?
    How is any of this consistent with the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality?

  • Investigator

    “Kim Davis tantrum”

    Why do you refer to her stance as a tantrum? The homosexual lifestyle is condemned in scripture, does that mean anything to you?

  • Investigator

    Be careful what you wish for because after achieving the Godless utopia some strive for, you may find it to be a nightmare instead.

  • Ann Smith

    Of course not. That would make me a hypocrite in my church. I am not intolerant of YOU, just your world view. Bigotry is intolerance of PEOPLE, not their ideas. Now, if you can’t tolerate me, that makes you a religious bigot.

  • Pennybird

    Homosexuality is a state of being, not a lifestyle choice, and this isn’t the fifth century. Progress is occurring, as it did when we banned scripture-sanctioned slavery. Fact is, homosexuals have sex, live together, conceive, adopt and raise children regardless of their marital status. Her job is to give them the certificate that proves they have next-of-kin rights, which has no moral component.

    Take some deep breaths, Kim, be grateful that some control-freakish county official didn’t deny her a marriage license based on their reading of what is condemned in scripture.

    Live and let live.

  • JD

    Then congratulations: You are a bigot.

    Why? For you are FORCING your mythology upon others who do not want them and you have vowed to destroy gay families.

    So drop they whole fake ‘I care about you guys’ when you cannot even support equal rights and insist the LGBTI remain 2nd class people, something less than fully human.

    Keep your paranoid self-righteous superstitions to yourself.

  • JD

    Your ‘scriptures’ only applies to you. Quit trying to force your paranoid superstitions upon others who do not want them.

  • JD

    “I never saw it as her trying to impose anything on anyone else. My view is that she is attempting not have what she feels is immoral behavior foisted upon HER.”

    That’s pretty much how ISIS believes.

  • JD
  • Ann Smith

    If you don’t care for what Catholicism teaches THEN DON’T BE ONE! Who ever said I am forcing anyone to do anything? My catechism forbids mind-control. You cannot even support freedom of opinion. Sorry, but it seems as if you are the one full of hate.

  • seashell

    How is any of this consistent with the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality?

    I don’t know. Same way it’s consistent with no Biblical prohibition of polygamy?

  • JD

    Your Catholicism stops as soon as you try to force it upon others. Denying equal rights to others based upon you superstitious beliefs IS BEING A BIGOT.

    I’m not sorry if you cannot comprehend that.

  • JD

    I am not full of hate.

    I am tired of the bullshit.

    You have every right in the world to believe what you want.

    That right STOPS as soon as you try to force another to abide by your beliefs.

    I cant make that any simpler.

  • seashell

    Your first link does not include that quote.

    3rd paragraph.

  • JD

    “I am NOT a Christian. But I fully support you being a Christian.” = Not a bigot.

    ” I am a Christian. Therefore I do not support you being a non Christian.” = Bigot.

    “I am not gay. But I fully support you as a gay person to have full rights.” = Not a bigot.

    ” I am not gay. Therefore I do not support you being a gay person.” = Bigot.

    Are you getting the picture now?

  • Falken

    What risk is there to these people? So far they seem to be dealing with quite a unique risk of being loved and favored by the anti-gay lobby. And by “set apart” you mean the male-female coupling can accidentally reproduce that’s grand. That, by no way, means they are the best option for parenting as there are plenty of people that shouldn’t be parents who are by this logic. Furthermore, the fact that we’ve literally exploded in population on the planet means reproducing shouldn’t quite be the priority anymore.

  • Walternator

    Actually, the theocracy y’all wish for has proven to be pretty nightmarish, as well, historically.

  • seashell

    Bottom line, mintap. Your whole theory of pair bonds in Nature and the alignment of Nature and reproduction with children’s rights – doesn’t fly.

    Both same-sex and opposite-sex pair bonds occur in nature. SS occurs less frequently than OS. But just because SS occurs less frequently, doesn’t mean they are less valued by Nature. How do you know they are not valued more because they are less frequent? (You don’t.)

    Pair-bonds are not limited to reproduction. Not all pair bonds reproduce. They exist for other reasons not tied to reproduction.

    Your alignment of Nature and policy doesn’t take into account the SS pair-bonds and ties child well-being with the act of reproduction alone. Studies have shown the latter to be a false assumption.

    Will children have optimal outcomes if they grow up in a world where humans are allowed to discriminate against part of Nature’s creation?

  • Ann Smith

    No. Your understanding of Catholicism is sadly lacking. Your
    understanding of bigotry is even
    more bereft of meaning. When we profess our faith we renounce Satan and all his works. I am forbidden to say that what is wrong is right. I am forbidden to help you in your sin; just like I can’t help you to get drugs or a vasectomy. In fact, if I don’t say to you that your acts are sinful I have conspired with you in your sin. I personally don’t care how unfair you think that is.

  • Walternator

    If that were the only lifestyle condemned in scripture, and not practiced by Christians, it might mean more. There were over 300 commandments, and y’all gleefully practice violation of many of them. In point of fact, didn’t the new covenant make all the old laws invalid, including the one you cherry pick from them to discriminate against homosexuals? In contrast, Jesus, in the new testament spoke out against divorce many times, and said nothing about homosexuals at all, and yet evangelicals and fundamentalists have a higher divorce rate than the general population.

  • JD

    Your mythologies have absolutely no bearing upon my life, my journey, my path.

    Your path is not my path.

    I have my own life, my own journey, my own path. It is solely mine to live.

    IT IS NOT YOURS TO DICTATE OR RUN.

    So stop trying to force your mythologies upon me.

    Get it now?

  • Walternator

    Oh come on, you can do better than that. If you’re going to throw up specters of fear, do like some of the rest of you do, and throw up bestiality, lol.

  • JD

    ” When we profess our faith we renounce Satan and all his works.”

    Nice how you pretty much labeled the entire LBGTI community as Satan spawn.

    You demonstrate the classic problem of being unwilling or unwanting to actually listen. You are so blinded by your mythologies to comprehend the damage, hurt and pain you inflict. You cant hear us when we say stop.

    And you wonder why people call you a bigot??

  • seashell

    As long as turtles remain reserved for conservative politicians.

  • James Quinn

    Just about all of male heroes in the bible were polygamists, so if you’re going to condemn that, you’ll need to condemn a lot of people in scripture.

  • James Quinn

    Good grief. Stop calling a vasectomy sinful- you’re making yourself look silly.

  • Ann Smith

    You insist on forcing ME to do something that my religion prohibits. It seems as if you cannot comprehend THAT.

  • Ann Smith

    You are a close-minded person who insists that I endorse something that I cannot. Just like a spoiled brat who insists that I let them have cake for supper. They cry, “You hate me! You won’t let me do what I want! WAHHH!

  • Ann Smith

    I am not trying to change you or force you to do anything. That is your delusion. Did I insist you become Catholic? Did I insist you stop having gay sex? Did I kidnap you and tie you up and bring you to my church? What are you smoking?

  • JD

    Full equality and rights for the LGBTI does not interfere with your own life.

    So stop trying to force your mythologies upon the rest of us.

  • Ann Smith

    Yes, the ENTIRE LGBT is under Satan’s spell. You are engaging is his evil works. There is salvation in Jesus Christ, if you ever decide to honor Creation and not creatures.

  • JD

    Not my mytholoy, not my monkeys.

  • Ann Smith

    And what gives you the right to re-write the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I did not stop my husband when he had a vasectomy (God rest his soul). Years later I confessed this grave sin of complicity and I have done my penance for it. Kind of arrogant that you would like to take the place of my spiritual leader.

  • JD

    You actively try to keep gays from marriage by calling them Sstan spawn.

    You have no idea how ugly that is.

  • Ann Smith

    I am not trying to force my religion on anyone. Have I coerced you to believe as I do? Have I extorted you in any way? These things are forbidden by the Catechism.

  • Ann Smith

    Get a dictionary. It is your behavior I will not tolerate. If you are hungry, I will feed you. If you are cold I will clothe you. I will NOT help you to live in sin, however.

  • JD

    You’re the one insisting on calling the LBGTI community Satan spawn.

  • Ann Smith

    Spawn? Your choice of words, not mine. Sin is sin. It comes from following Satan and his evil ways. By identifying sin, we show the difference between right behavior and wrong behavior. Now If you want to go about this for another week or so, I’m not playing. You can just write a nice letter to the Pope at the Vatican and tell him that his church of 1.2 billion Catholics needs to change its doctrine. I’m sure you will get a thoughtful reply.

  • JD

    By labeling the LGBTI community as Satan spawn you already have forced your religion upon us. It affects any and all interaction you have with the LGBTI community.

  • JD

    “Have I coerced you to believe as I do? “

    You try to every time you say the LGBTI community is ‘under Satan’s spell.’

  • Ann Smith

    I work with a few homosexuals and I like them very much. One of them just left the job yesterday to care for her ailing mother. We each said how much we will miss one another. We worked extremely well together. We never discussed her lifestyle because the subject never came up. She never asked me for my approval and I never gave it. If she had asked I would have explained about my beliefs, etc. Getting into religious topics in the workplace is not time well spent so I tend to avoid it. The “forcing” thing is a weak argument. I think it is a lot of nonsense.

  • mintap

    “Best option for parenting” by whose measure? Should the state really be deciding best parenting practices and placing children accordingly. Really only if a child’s fundamental rights are at stake should does the state have any justification in intervening. Abortion is bad parenting, but it also violates a fundamental right to life. That is why it should be illegal. Life-threatening child abuse is bad parenting too, but the threat to a fundamental right is why the state should revoke parental rights in such cases.

    ***Every single child originates through the male-female union, and every single child is not old enough yet to consent to any alternative family arrangement.***

    If there are none of the other fundamental rights of a child are being violated, natural parental rights must be honored, even if people like you may deem them not as “good” parents as the cream of the crop same-sex union, and even if others may deem them not as good parents as a corporation could be.

    Marriage is not useful because it brings more people into existence, it is useful because it is helpful in securing the natural rights of whoever does come into existence.

    NATURAL RIGHTS is a key issue here you seem to be entirely neglecting. That is dangerous ground to thread. Let’s hope that no one with the kind of extreme views that disregard natural rights ever gets much power.

  • JD

    Yet you secretly feared you were working with someone possessed by Satan.

  • mintap

    It is not MY theory on Natural Rights that we should be following, we should follow the purpose of why the U.S. was instituted (i.e., to secure the rights endowed at our creation).

    If you don’t like that go institute a different government.

    We are all created equal and have rights endowed at our creation. This is the primary stage of human nature that we can look at to see what are those rights. Every human originates alive; there is a right to life. Every human originates a separate person; there is a right to liberty. Every human originates through a specific mother and specific father; These people have parental rights. Every human originates through the male-female union. It entirely makes sense for states to have an institution that sets apart and secures this arrangement. Their purpose after all is to secure such rights. It makes no sense to ban states from doing this.

    We DO NOT find out as much about what our fundamental natural human rights are by looking at other animals.

    What are the other reasons pair-bonds exist (and specifically reasons that would exclude trios, and specifically reasons that are of interest to the state)?

    Should the “spirituality” (Justice Kennedy’s word in Obergefell) of the pair-bond really be significant to a secular state? (IF YOU RESPOND AT ALL PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION.)

  • Investigator

    I’m not speaking to non believers, I’m speaking to those who claim they ARE believers yet appear to be ignoring the scriptural prohibition against homosexuality.

  • Investigator

    “Homosexuality is a state of being, not a lifestyle choice…”

    If this is true, why was the old homosexual chant “10% is not enough, recruit, recruit, recruit.”

    What do you say about the thousands who have left the homosexual lifestyle?
    What do you say about the homosexuals who attack those who have left the homosexual lifestyle?
    If it is truly live and let live, why should homosexuals care if some of their number leave the lifestyle?

  • Investigator

    Nice straw man, try addressing reality.

    I’m not interested in a theocracy as I’ve told you before. Now I’ve told you again. It is dishonest for you to pretend otherwise. You gave your definition of “Dominionism” and I neither fit the definition nor does anybody I know or have ever heard of.

    When we first started our conversations I thought much better of you. But as you have failed to refute the evidence I’ve presented you, you have increasingly switched to personal attacks against the Christian faith in an attempt to discredit me personally.

    Christians will always provide critics with ample ammunition on how they have fallen short of the standard scripture demands. When perfection is the standard, we fall short, hence, why we need a savior. Faith in our savior, Christ Jesus, has compelled millions of Christians to acts of service and sacrifice on behalf of our fellow man. The Salvation Army, World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse, Operation Mobilization, Youth With a Mission, and perhaps thousands of other Christian organizations have fed and clothed hundreds of millions of people. While these Christians serve their fellow man, there are others who criticize them for not doing enough, or for also sharing the gospel, or for some other perceived imperfection. It is manifest which camp you belong to.

  • Jeff Preuss

    >>If this is true, why was the old homosexual chant “10% is not enough, recruit, recruit, recruit.”<<

    You are clearly basing your "knowledge" of homosexuality on stereotypes and 'gay panic' prompted by one of the chants used by more militant gay groups who were pissed off at being accused of recruiting, so they decided to get in-your-face about it because that accusation is so patently ridiculous.

    Here's a link to a snopes message board discussion on that very Lesbian Avengers chant you reference: http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=104;t=000520;go=older

  • Walternator

    One good straw man deserves another, in my book. Never heard of anyone pushing for a Godless utopia, In the US today, either. Just saying. When you come back to reality, I’ll be happy to join you, thanks, since I am already here. You support Kim Davis in her breaking of our laws, to answer to the “higher laws” of God, and there couldn’t be a better example of dominionism, for all your denials. As for the difference between when I met you and now, learning you were a purposeful liar and apologizer for dominionists has definitely changed my opinion of you. I imagine that’s going to come through in my comments, and seems fairly appropriate, as far as I’m concerned. I’m fully confident that your delusions of refuting real history and inserting your fantasies about the founders being accomodationists, like you, won’t be shared by anyone sane reading our debates on the subject, and I am more than willing to let them make up their own minds, despite your aggrandized opinion of yourself.

  • Investigator

    There isn’t any lifestyle good or bad that some Christian hasn’t practiced. We live in a fallen world where opportunities abound for every kind of wrong doing, so please don’t pretend that homosexuality is the only sin Christians are concerned with. We’ve already talked about the abortuaries of Planned Parenthood where millions are being murdered in these houses of horror, their body parts sold off like cargo. Divorce and marital relations is a huge issue and receives enormous attention in the Church. Self-centeredness, anger, integrity issues, these are themes you’ll find in sermons and which fill the shelves at Christian book stores, not books about homosexuality.

  • Investigator

    The Bible speaks very plainly in both the old and new Testaments about its condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. See the story of Sodom or the first chapter of Romans.
    Jesus approved of the Old Testament, and that includes the prohibitions against homosexuality.

  • Walternator

    How about shrimp, you like shrimp, or any of the other shellfish? Got any tattoos? Do you wear blended fabrics? Have you stoned your unruly children lately? Come on, you cherry pick homosexuality out as a sin from the old testament for persecution, and ignore every damn thing else in there. Your churches where gays are not welcomed should all put up a sign saying hypocrisy is us, and get it over with.

  • Investigator

    “That’s pretty much how ISIS believes.”

    And how is that?

  • Investigator

    What did Jesus say to the woman caught in adultery?

  • Investigator

    “How about Huckabee saying that the U.S. Constitution should be changed to more closely follow the Bible?”

    Could you provide documentation for such a statement?

  • Investigator

    “They think that the Bible is the highest law of the land…”

    That is for them personally. No one suggests the Bible supplant the constitution.

    “It’s amazing what people can convince themselves of.”

    I was thinking the same about those who have convinced themselves that Huckabee is saying the constitution should be changed to more closely follow the Bible.

  • Investigator

    You didn’t read Romans Chapter 1 did you? I know you know it is in the New Testament.

  • Investigator

    I saw them on the news with these chants and they weren’t angry. AND, they weren’t the Lesbian Avengers, unless of course, they admit males into their group.

  • Walternator

    I only care about what Jesus had to say on the subject, and consider the rest of the swill there to be the work of Saul and friends, sorry.

  • Jeff Preuss

    The Lesbian Avengers were the genesis of that chant, not the only ones who ever used it. And you have no idea how angry the people you saw using it were.

    Again, everything you’ve posted has been based on conjecture and stereotype – pure ‘gay panic.’ Perfect love casts out all fear. Stop being afraid – just trust God.

  • Investigator

    Let’s see, you’ve called me a liar several times now but have never stated where I’ve lied. You’ve called me a hypocrite but haven’t explained how. I’m sure you’ll be calling me a Nazi next, it will then be the liberal trifecta.

    Washington, Adams, and Madison, as presidents, offered days of prayer and Thanksgiving. What was your response? A quote from Madison some 30 years after the First Amendment and long after he held any law making authority, that he felt the four times he offered, as president, days of prayer and thanksgiving was not constitutional. Let the reader decide whether opinions offered 30 years after the fact trump actual actions by Madison while he was president.

    Madison was on the committee that instituted Chaplains. We still have Chaplains to this day.

    A Christian text book being used in our nation’s schools before, during, and almost 100 years after the First Amendment.

    Adopting Christian holidays and the Christian Sabbath as the day of rest.

    Funding churches to the Indians and paying for a priest, done by at least the first 3 president, including TJ.

    I could go on with many more examples, examples of acts done by our FFs, not just opinions in private letters. All these I gave you and your response was to give excuses for these acts which often involved claims that the clergy forced them to…as if they were just shaking in their boots at disappointing them. Weak.

  • Investigator

    It is irrelevant who started the chant; what is relevant is that I saw it a number of times on the news. I also know what I saw, and I saw homosexual guys chanting and smiling. No observer would have interpreted these smiling men as angry.
    What makes you think I’m afraid? After claiming I had no idea what I saw on the news, you now claim to know, without any evidence, that I have fear?
    I will take your advice to trust God, one of the tallest orders in the Christian faith.

  • Investigator

    Get ready, the polygamists will be coming next. I saw one couple, er, couple plus, filing for a second marriage license just the day after the supreme court decision.

  • Jeff Preuss

    Y’know, whatever, Investigator. You’re boring, and won’t take off your blinders, so I blocked you. I leave you free to continue being willfully obtuse. That’s certainly your choice.

  • Walternator

    And yet you ignore him breaking from the old laws, on that subject, but think he still would have been rigid on homosexuals. Cherry pick much?

  • JD

    That anything outside thier strict interpretation of scripture is immoral and must be dealt with.

  • Time to move along Ann. Peace go with you.

  • NeedACleverName
  • seashell

    … what is relevant is that I saw it a number of times on the news.

    Fox News? CBN? Doesn’t matter.

  • DrewTwoFish

    Uh, oh yeah…LOL

  • DrewTwoFish

    All Christians pick and choose. I think it’s telling what they do decide to focus on. And maybe it’s time to put aside worship of the Bible.

  • Investigator

    I repeat, how is homosexual marriage consistent with the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality?

    Regarding the heroes of the Bible, you understand that they were fallen men with the same weaknesses all the rest of us have and that the Old Testament is a record not just of their heroic acts, but of their failings as well. If we were perfect, we wouldn’t need a savior.
    And what of homosexual adoption, do you think that is a good idea? Do you believe that a man can adequately replace a woman as a Mother?

    Finally, when the polygamists are successful in getting the supreme court to bless their unions, will you maintain the same attitude?

  • Investigator

    Are you suggesting that there isn’t folks advocating the legalization of polygamy?

    When they present the same arguments the homosexuals have, how do you not give them the same “rights”?

    What is your feeling on polygamy, is that a practice you think healthy for America?

  • Investigator

    You’ll have to explain that statement. Scripture specifically condemns homosexuality yet you appear to be fine with homosexual marriage. Scripture, as far as I can remember, does not condemn polygamy though it does say elders should be husbands of one wife. My opposition to polygamy is not based on Biblical teaching, I just find it an unhealthy practice for America. However, like homosexuality, those who wish to practice polygamy should not be molested. If they wish to marry, that is their affair, I just don’t want to be forced to recognize their unions.

  • seashell

    Scripture specifically condemns homosexuality yet you appear to be fine with homosexual marriage…. If they wish to marry, that is their affair, I just don’t want to be forced to recognize their unions.

    Probably because I’m not a Christian. I’m also not gay or married to several people. I guess the best we can say about me is that I try to live in a love that promotes fairness and equality as justice for all.

    Unless you work for the government, no one is forcing you to recognize anything. And the government only does it because of that separation from religion thing, which is a win for everyone.

  • seashell

    The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

    Is this the phrase that’s been ringing your chimes? Good grief. Many people say they are spiritual, but not religious.

    Kennedy is only giving examples of what people might find in an enduring bond (marriage), he’s not demanding that they must be present in order to be legal.

    Every human originates through the male-female union. It entirely makes sense for states to have an institution that sets apart and secures this arrangement.

    For the time being, male + female = capacity to reproduce is secure with or without the state. But when society and nature wander off course, the answer isn’t to limit and undermine other solutions that do work through a special “setting apart”. What are you thinking other than trying to strip religion out of an argument against SSM that is strictly religious in nature because you think it might fly that way?

  • Investigator

    I appreciate the link and the fact that you provided documentation for your views.
    Regardless of how you feel on the issue, Huckabee did say AMEND the constitution, not simply change it. This would require going through the process set up by our Founding Fathers…a very high bar to get over. Contrast this with how liberals usually get a judge to overturn the will of the people. Example, there were some 43 states(?) that voted on homosexual rights and homosexuals lost in 39(?) of them. Yet, the supreme court has now overruled the will of the people, and this after non-stop, peddle to the metal homosexual propaganda in the news, television, movies, educational system, and using public funds.

    Next, it would be helpful to hear Huckabee’s explanation for his statements rather than a quick sound bite.

  • Investigator

    “In point of fact, didn’t the new covenant make all the old laws invalid…”

    As you correctly point out above, much of the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Christ and no longer applies (dietary law falls into this category) so appealing to the list you cite is a non starter.

    I know for you this is all academic and you couldn’t care less what the Bible says except to the extent you can use it as a weapon against those who DO believe it. However, let me point out that homosexuality in the New Testament is called (NIV) sinful, impure, a shameful lust, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion. Again, those aren’t my words, those are God’s, or from your point of view, what purport to be God’s.

    This may fall on deaf ears, but we don’t hate homosexuals, and there are a number of ministries specifically to homosexuals, just as there are to prostitutes. Both homosexuals and prostitutes are loved by God and will be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven upon their repentance. They will stand before the Almighty in equal measure with Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, or any other stalwart of the faith.

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:28

  • Investigator

    What do you suggest should replace the Bible?

    I’m asking keeping in mind that as far as I’m aware, this is supposed to be a progressive Christian website. Forgive me if it is an agnostic website.

  • Investigator

    This was before Fox news came into existence. Sorry, but I can’t remember the network, but it was a long time ago.

  • Investigator

    I’m not one to instruct the Lord on what is right or wrong. If you have a problem with the consistency of his commands, I’ll let you take it up with him.

  • Investigator

    I understand you disagree with Kim Davis, but don’t you think the video is a little over the top? Disrespectful? Does this video reflect the progressive Christian attitude?

  • DrewTwoFish

    I’m not suggesting that Christians should toss the Bible. I don’t see it as all or nothing. What I do see is that clinging to every syllable as being equivalent to being a “true Christian” is problematic. If one is intellectually honest they have to admit that there are inconsistencies and contradictions, at least superficially. I think running things through the Christ filter (God’s highest laws) makes sense.

    I don’t believe most people really stop and ask themselves WHY they believe the Bible from stem to stern must be taken literally, MUST equal the WORD of GOD. It’s just a given, based on their upbringing, usually. Again, it doesn’t mean that there is no truth or wisdom there. It just means one doesn’t needn’t worship the book, especially when if flies in the face of common sense and clear evidence.

    I understand that this is scary, messy and grey. But that’s the way life is. The universe, people…not everything can be easily tied up into neat little packages.

  • DrewTwoFish

    Lifestyle. Just what is that? What is the heterosexual lifestyle?

  • Benji

    We are very fortunate that when it comes to matters of basic civil rights, we don’t have to “wish” for anything. We have a Constitution that guarantees our basic freedoms. This doesn’t assure anything close to a utopia- just a reasonable foundation from which people can live their lives and enjoy some semblance of meaning, signifance and happiness.

  • Investigator

    You’ll have to ask Pennybird, I was quoting him or her.

  • JD

    “The homosexual lifestyle is condemned in scripture”

    No, the bible does not condemn homosexuality.

  • But Jesus supports and reaffirmed all commands(like divorce) created by God and the only denied the laws created by the Jews and he didn’t denied the bible actually he preaches it.
    And Marriage, Fatherhood, virginity, holiness, forgivness giving life to human are laws of God not of man.
    there aren’t inconsistencies and contradictions, What are is people who don’t read and remains only with what they tell thems on sundays, if we read we would understand exactly what the Bible says.

  • DrewTwoFish

    You see? You’re even now deciding what part of the bible is “man’s” law vs. “God’s ” law. Picking and choosing, as everyone does. As for the bible confirming itself – that’s circular reasoning.

  • gimpi1

    Actually, several people – including Mr. Huckabee have said that very thing. One of Mr. Huckabee’s platform positions is changing several laws to fit with his view of the Bible. He’s on record with that. When he’s asked how he can change the constitution, he generally changes the subject.

    However, several others have said that they have profoundly different interpretations of, for example, the first amendment, than are generally accepted. For example, David Barton – a historian of dubious reputation, has said that he believes the first amendment might only apply to Christian denominations, not to other religions. He’s also said that, while the first amendment prevents the U.S. from having an official religion, it doesn’t prevent individual states from adopting official state religions and taxing or penalizing those that don’t belong to that belief. Mr. Barton is often quoted by conservative Christians, though I don’t know if Mr. Huckabee follows him.

  • Jeff Preuss

    *I* read it. Often. And there are inconsistencies and contradictions.

    I understand what the Bible says and what it doesn’t say. And what this version of the Bible but not that one says.

    Exactly? That’s not really a term that one can apply to a reading of the Bible unless you get into the specifics of which language and which translation you read. You can say exactly what the English NIV Bible says in a verse or two, but the meaningof each verse isn’t necessarily crystal clear – so much depends on context.

  • Benji

    Neither Washington nor any other Founding Father would be considered for membership in your church today. Their appeals to deity were in keeping with the cultural decorum of the day and were civic-minded entreaties- not “Christian” in the strict sense and CERTAINLY nowhere close to 21st century American Evangelical. These men were mostly Deists and Theists, and their rationalist faith would be considered apostate by the likes of Dave Barton and other fundamentalists and evangelicals today.

    When Christians breach Jefferson’s wall of separation between Church and State, they trample the sanctity of pure religion. John Jay and other early American leaders trafficked in this from time to time. Lie down with a dog and you get its fleas, as the saying goes. Caesar’s fleas do not bode well for the Body of Christ. The State seeks to control and regulate behavior, the gospel does not endeavor to do any such thing. It seeks to serve others and to heal. It takes the lowest seat in the synagogue and firmly and joyfully expects to be disregarded and disrespected and yes, even persecuted. American Evangelicals would do well to read a bit about the 18th century Quakers and even the Moravians across the pond

  • Robert Conner

    Davis is seditious which fact accounts for much of her appeal to neo-Confederate hillbillies. But…she’s going to be defended (predictably) by the usual loons and grifters who see her as a cash cow. To its credit, GoFundMe refused to accept donations for her, an indication that people are catching on to the victimhood scam.

    As far as I’m concerned, there is no progressive Christianity. Totalitarianism is baked into Christianity.

  • Rob Smith

    When San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome decided to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of California law, was he hijacking the government? What about when California governor Jerry Brown refused to defend the legally enacted Proposition 8? Or President Obama when he refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act? What about the District of Columbia’s refusal to comply with the Heller decision? I don’t recall much outrage from the left about those instances of government hijacking.

  • seashell

    This article is focused on citizens or officials, like Kim Davis, who try to force the government to conform to their own religious beliefs. The instances of Newsome, Obama, Brown, et al that you cite, were based on their beliefs that the laws in question were unconstitutional and had nothing to do with their religious beliefs. Also, they did not disobey a federal court order and were not in contempt of the court.

    Legally, the duty to defend by states and the federal government seems to occupy a gray area. Mostly they did not defend either because of cost or because they had no constitutional defenses to offer that had not already been struck down. (That the people voted for it is not a constitutional defense. It’s just a political talking point.)

    Shorter: those things are not like the other.

  • Rob Smith

    Kim Davis isn’t trying to force the government to conform to her religious beliefs, she’s asking for an accommodation for her religious beliefs. In other words, she’s asking that the government not force her to violate her religious beliefs by affixing her name to same-sex marriage licenses. This is why Benjamin’s article is a bit puzzling to me. Anabaptists benefit from a religious accommodation exempting them from military service. It sounds an awful lot like Benjamin, and, I guess you, don’t really object to “hijacking” the government in principle, but only when the “hijacker” disagrees with you politically. So when you say that “those things are not like the other”, you mean in it the sense that you agree with the objectives of on Newsome, Brown, and Obama, so you don’t have a problem with them “hijacking the government”, but you don’t agree with Davis, so you oppose her “hijacking the government”, even though, realistically, her request for a religious accommodation is fair less dangerous to our form of government than executive branch officials deciding unilaterally which laws they will obey and which they won’t.

  • Rob Smith

    Why would an Anabaptist government official resist giving a concealed carry permit? Anabaptists aren’t vegetarians and aren’t opposed to hunting. Many concealed carry permit holders, especially in the Southwest, are joggers who carry a pistol to protect themselves from coyotes and other wild animals that they may encounter. What is the Anabaptist religious objection to allowing a jogger the means to defend themselves from a coyote or other non-human predator?

  • seashell

    People are weird, aren’t they? While I don’t practice your politics or your religion, when I felt that you and others had been wronged and treated unfairly, I monetarily supported your RICO lawsuit on the principle of justice. It’s the same principle by which I support same sex marriage and the rights of all eligible people to acquire marriage licenses from their government.