• “the Pharisees are a group of people who become best known for trying to trap Jesus with their questions.”

    Sure. And Jesus did a terrible job of answering most of those questions, a fact
    which is overlooked by believers. Jesus was completely contradictory. For example, he commanded his followers to judge others harshly and to show no mercy:

    “if you deem them unworthy…[submit] your testimony against them.” – JESUS (Matthew 10:13)
    “tell him his fault.”- JESUS (Matthew 18:15)
    “Hate them.. or you are not worthy of me” – JESUS (Luke 14:26)

    Rosa Parks defied the Jim Crow orders which were rooted in Southern Baptist claims about the “biblical inferiority” of black people. She improved America.
    But Kim Davis is all about following orders from the same religious fountain.

    “hate them” – JESUS (Luke 14:26)
    Jesus and Jim Crow have a lot in common.

  • Greg1

    Sorry, Laura, you are incorrect. In 2004, Kentucky voted into its Constitution Amendment 1, banning gay marriage in the State. This woman was and still is abiding by State Law. She IS doing the will of the People of Kentucky. The SCOTUS has no authority to change that law. Only a federal law would override their State Constitution, yet there is no such law.

  • Yodawg


    If you call her a bigot than you need to have the courage to call the bible bigoted as well. You’re trying to take the via media to be cool. Either be an atheist like Max or a bible thumper like Greg. Don’t try the middle road, it is lame and intellectually disingenuous.

  • Dominic

    You have your Rosa Park posers reversed here, Laura. The gay men persistently coming to her, knowing her stance, believe they have cleared an obstacle for the gay race.
    The new America has no tolerance for people who acted as all Americans did only a few decades ago. No, throw out any remote reference to religious morality, toss away individual freedoms, let’s recognize any union as marriage even though there is nary a shred of an historical quest for it, and let’s stifle all those who dare to recoil at these changes that America now says is “American”.
    Davis is a pawn in the gay agenda, an easy mark to offer up as a fanatic or bigot. Shame on the gays for pursuing their dubious goals with such low and shameful tactics.
    And you fell for it all.

  • Burt

    Greg, your info is the incorrect. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and the Constitution supersedes all other laws, federal or state. That’s been the case since our founding, and was explicitly emphasized in Cooper v. Aaron. Any decision by the Supreme Court is binding in all 50 States and immediately nullifies any lower federal or state law contrary to that decision. The Kentucky state law is unconstitutional and unenforceable. It’s like the anti-Sodomy laws still on the books- they may as well not be, since it’s impossible for the state to apply those laws in court and have it stick.

  • Greg1

    Yes, but those are muddy waters. The Supreme Court also upheld anti-polygamy laws. So what this Court has done, is selectively interpreted the 14th Amendment to suit their activist needs. And We also have a First Amendment, which affords Free exercise of religion, and this is not simply some lesser religious article (venial sin), such as eating pork, or not traveling on Saturdays, this is a foundational aspect of Christianity. It is in no uncertain terms permissible to violate this, as a person will be sent to hell should they participate in it, regardless whether it is a civil law, or a commandment of God. The thing is, this woman was elected to office, and during her term in office, the SCOTUS changed the terms, and demanded that she violate her Faith so to comply. That is a constitutional question that will require a court to settle it. However, this activist Court has an atheist majority, and is unlikely to address it, or care about that element of the Constitution.

  • Burt

    The people who have the legal right to get married in Kentucky have 1st Amendment rights as well- the right to not have their freedom blocked by somebody ELSE’s religion!

    The oath of office a public official takes isn’t limited to the law as it existed when they took office- if the law changes, they’re still obliged as a public official to follow it. If their conscience forbids, that’s the time to resign public office. Davis is entitled to her faith, but not her job, especially at the cost of others’ rights. I doubt her supporters would be as quick to support a religiously pacifist clerk who refused all gun licenses.

    And there are many many Christians who support gay marriage, myself included, so the opposition is hardly a ‘foundational aspect of Christianity’- perhaps of Ms. Davis’ denomination, but they don’t represent the entire big-c Church.

  • Greg1

    Again, this is no small, or venial, matter. Christians involved in a sin of this gravity, whether explicitly, or implicitly, is accountable in no small way before God Almighty. Gun permits mean very little, unless of course a person buying the gun said openly that they were going to take someone’s life with it. Most people buy guns for target practice. This, however, is a very grave matter before God Almighty, and Kim has every reason to challenge the courts in it. And the strange thing about the ruling, is that it was suspect in and of itself. And should be reviewed by the States. A State Convention should probably be held to correct it. Because at minimum two of the Justices were very much involved in the gay rights movement prior to the ruling, and should have recused themselves. Ginsberg had conducted gay marriages, and another on the Court is likely gay herself. So this ruling is way off the charts, and should be reviewed by the States. The SC is supposed to be honorable, but…

  • Doc Anthony

    Sorry, Laura, but Kim Davis did the right thing as a Christian elected official. And that includes her decision NOT to resign. She hung in there, and showed our nation, in the face of a great and unacceptable evil, what it means to be a Christian who agrees with her Bible and is willing to pay for that agreement.

    Too many Christians have decided to mess up, hopping in bed with the Gay Marriage Cult. (Hello RNS?) So such folks are naturally going to rag on the Kim Davis’es, naturally going to attack any Christians who make a considered and responsible decision to NOT surrender to the inexcusably evil gay-marriage mess.

    Christians who have surrendered to the Gay Goliath, instead of taking whatever courageous stand is within their power to take, are the REAL folks who are hurting Christianity. Such people are rendering unto Caesar “the things that are God’s”, and thereby messing things up for the entire nation. Thankfully, Kim Davis is not among them.

  • Be Brave


    You are exposing the misguidedness in Ms. Davis, but the 100% her-sy and anti-Christian stance of the gay ma_riage mobs that say they are Christians.

    Just as there is no biblical support for what Ms. Davis is doing based on the Gospels, there is no support for the support of homos-xuals and bi-sex_als ANYWHERE in the same Gospels and the rest of the entire New Testament.

    Sooooo, Laura, Ms. Judgmentalism . . . apply the same honesty to the pro homo$exuality heretics that claim they are Christians. They are l!ars first and foremost and have no stand in anything to render to God gay pr!de.

    Time for the liberals and progressives to take the immense forest out of their own eyes and either repent or invent some new g_y religion. Which of course, they are. They’re just being typically dishonest about that.

  • Be Brave


    The evil side is right on this one. And of course. As you know FROM the Gospels, Demons and Satan know the scriptures well. Not only were they there when Jesus preached from the Torah, but they were there as the Canon was cemented. And civil same sex marriage is of the world and its ways. That’s is why atheists and other degenerates rally to it.

    So Ms. Davis and other Christians are not doing anything wrong by handing some reprobate a marriage license. In fact, it is none of their business either religious or business. And of course, Ms. Davis is no pillar of moral behavior herself. If she wants to be a witness for Christ, she should be on a Church tour showcasing how all of her sexual sins doesn’t make for a happy life.

    Look the LGBT side is in the darkness and always will be. Just allow them the choice to willfully go there and stay away from them in every way you can.

  • BB,

    “she should be on a Church tour showcasing how all of her sexual sins doesn’t make for a happy life.”

    I can’t resist this nonsense.

    A”Church Tour”!? Showcasing her sexual sins?! :-/
    A hot ticket for depraved, sexually repressed people eager to try them out!
    What a sad view of human life.

  • Doc Anthony

    This one time I’ll have to respectfully disagree with a part of what you said, BB. We do obviously agree that this Gay Marriage Cult Mess is “of the world” and indeed of darkness .

    But I keep looking at all these atheists, gay activists, messed-up judges and politicians, they’re all insisting that an elected official, Kim Davis, either surrender to THEIR evil demands, or to **voluntarily resign**.

    I keep asking, “And why does SHE have to voluntarily resign instead of fighting as long as she can? Why does she have to save the evil-doers ANY time or effort?”

    She’s opposing a HUGE, unmistakable and inexcusable evil. She already said she would accept the legal consequences of not signing off and not resigning. She knew she would only have a few days to legally take a stand, with NO chance to win.

    (And no, she doesn’t have a perfect past, but I don’t know anybody who does, & not me.)

    So I think Davis did the right thing with the time she had left.

  • Be Brave

    Mud Pie Man,\ AKA Atheist whatever . . .,

    You are so ignorant of Christian life that you showcase the st_pidity of the typical atheist to a laughable art form.

    Let me just this once cast pearls before sw!ne and try to explain to you (a person that has no reason to be posting in any Christian article) that Ms. Davis is as bad as anything the gay life has to offer. She needs to “spread the message” of marriage purity. And that can never be had in adultery and gay behavior. They are BOTH antithetical to Christian life.

    Do yourself a favor and try, just try, to get out of your id!ot box for a short time and learn more about Christian life than the delusion you cling to so fanatically. Although you do represent st_pid atheists in perfect example, Ms. Davis does not represent Christians likewise. She simply represents a person sickened by the diseased morality of the secular culture you and yours champion. But you both make your own choices.

  • Be Brave


    She didn’t do the right thing. Per Jesus, Peter and Paul. Does she have a record of asking people that come to her window is they are adulterers? Voodoo practioners or anti-Christ’s?


    Look at where The Church developed? It came out of (ekklesia) the Roman lascivious and permissive life that we live in now. Were Christian slaves told to refuse their Roman masters? Fight against Roman law or insult the godless?


    LGBT’s do not exist in Christian life as an acceptable community. Not much differently than Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are outside of the Church and we don’t see any one of the so-called “Christian” ones supporting those Christians that hold to marriage as Jesus taught it. So they are reprobate and apostate at the same time.
    Ms Davis, is far from a role model. She does not represent historic Christian behavior. She is a misguided goofball being used by some weird and unsavory political machine. That’s not good.

  • bapzz34

    I believe that morally she is right but legally she is wrong. Since her job requires her to follow the law of the land yet her conscious prevents her from following it completely, she should resign. This was a no win situation. If the federal law says gay’s can marry then we can’t change that because of our religious beliefs. We have to step back and allow God to handle it.

  • @BB, and Doc Anthony,

    KIM DAVIS does not have any power to do anything





  • alan

    When in proper context, Jesus words aren’t contradictory. The error of interpretation is man’s. Not God incarnate.

  • BB,

    “Stup!d Atheists..”

    I liked your idea of a sex showcase much better.

  • alan

    Just remember: the definition of a bigot is one who holds unswerving to their views, holding to their convictions in the face of whatever. If you’re going to attempt to insult someone with the bigot label, remember it applies to everyone at some point.

  • @alan,

    “The error is man’s..”


    What possible context justifies this?


    “If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and SEIZING HIS GENITALS, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.” – GOD (DEUT. 25:11)

    Cut off your wife’s hand? Show no pity?
    JESUS AGREES! (JOHN 1:17), (Mark 10:19)

    How can you defend such depravity? It is obvious nonsense.

  • Brad

    No, the US Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) overrides the Kentucky constitution.

  • @Alan,

    “the definition of a bigot is one who holds unswerving to their views”

    First of all, every committed Christian fits the description of ‘bigot’ according to your definition.

    A bigot is someone who unfairly pre judges someone else
    for a superficial feature the other person
    cannot change:

    eye color,
    skin color
    hair color
    ethnic heritage

    Religions, however, are just ideas – they are optional – nobody is ‘born with’ a religion. People change religions all the time for that reason.

    Joining a religion is like joining a political party: as in Democrat or Republican.
    Attacking a religious idea is like attacking a Republican idea or a Conservative – it is fair game for debate and ridicule.

  • labman57

    MLK? Rosa Parks? Jews under Nazi rule?
    Give me a freaking break!

    Once again, self-righteous Christian theocrats attempt to play the role of the poor maligned victim, indignantly wailing (with all of the chutzpah that they can muster):

    “How dare you be intolerant of my homophobic, misogynistic intolerance!
    How dare you deny me my God-given right to alienate and persecute anyone who does not share my exclusionary religious mores!”

    Bottom line: Christian conservatives continually strive to impose their own dogmatic beliefs onto the rest of society and then attempt to be perceived as righteous martyrs when their efforts are rebuffed.

    Sorry folks, you are the persecutors in this conflict, not the persecuted.

  • George Nixon Shuler

    The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution says otherwise. States are subject to the requirement to respect individual rights. I realize those who seek power and control over others find that inconvenient, but it is clear voting to limit the rights of groups of people do not pass constitutional muster.

  • George Nixon Shuler

    Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?

  • George Nixon Shuler

    Nice try, but that isn’t going to happen. The economic damage to the state from such a travesty is going to be brutal. It is no wonder this happened in a state whose economic viability is already at a historic low. It is already difficult for these states to attract workers. Bigotry does not help efforts to improve economic conditions. Birmingham, Alabama, was once considered the economic capital of the South but after Bull Conner’s antics attacking civil rights workers, it became a pale shadow of its former self.

  • George Nixon Shuler

    A public official who fails to perform his or her duties forfeits any claim of honor. This poor misguided woman is being exploited by the right-wing extremists and is costing the taxpayers a ton of pain. She’s become a worldwide laughingstock, kind of like Linda Tripp did in the 1990s. Maybe someone will pay for plastic surgery for her like they did for Tripp.

  • Ben in oakland

    Sometimes, you make a great deal of sense. I’vecongratulated you on that before.

    Davis is in new position to be throwing stones at anyone. I’m glad that you can recognize that.

  • Be Brave

    I’ve noticed that these articles that are written by fanatical pro-homosexuality authors here at RNS, have not even attempted to justify their affirming positions via anything from scripture. Now, we can all laugh at the hapless atheists that spew their idiocy ad infinitum (ad nauseum), but the authors of articles here on this site want to pervert Christianity and force it to its knees in homage to the rainbow idol. And that is sickening and dangerous to honest, decent, Bible-believing Christians that can’t sellout the Gospels for political correctness and a paycheck.

    Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks. And the authors here at RNS are no honest theologians either . . . as they try to warp Christianity into just another float in a gay pride parade. It needs to repeated, gay pride came into prominence on the rise of a completely anti-Christian movement of society. No amount of leftist subterfuge can change that reality.

  • Be Brave

    labman57’s rant is the perfect example of how dangerous things have gotten for Christians in the western world. Jesus taught that marriage is immutably man and woman/husband and wife. Every teaching about marriage and husband and wife – from the disciples – that are documented in the New Testament show the antithetical reality of gay pride and Christian life.

    And that is what is called hate speech and bigotry and whatever horrid anti-Christian/politically correct label that people like l-57 can attach to honest Christians.

    Long before LGBT’s gained control of the minds and hearts of the secular/godless hedonistic and narcissistic populace . . . the lines were drawn on the incompatibility gay life and Christian life are. Gay activists that pretend they are Christians ALWAYS fly that rainbow idol before the Gospel of Christ.
    Christians are in dire danger. And of course the radical anti-Christians deny that. Propagandists always do.

  • Morris

    Kim Davis has been divorced at least 3 times. The bible-specified punishment for each of those is stoning. So, Christians, get on it! Stone her thricely!

    And she’s obviously a glutton, so presumably god will get her for that grievous “sin” too…

  • Morris

    That Christian doctrine can be “warped”, and can be so easily warped, is just one more thing that makes me question its claimed divine origin. There is clearly no active agent deity around setting things right.

  • Dave Nuckols

    No, U.S. Supreme Court is not athiest. They are 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. 0 atheists. You need not be Oneness Pentecostal in order to believe in God. But you should interpret our Laws based on Constitutional principles without resort to sacred texts.

  • alison

    I feel bad for this lady because the Supreme Court changed the rules in the middle of the game. She came on board to do one thing, and now she is being required to do just the opposite. However, having said that, if it was me I would resign my post. Through no fault of her own she is in a position of having committed civil disobedience, and there is almost always a price to be paid when one does that. So resign, get it over with. But pay no attention to Laura. She is every bit as much of a fool as she believes this woman to be.

  • Richard Rush

    “. . . now she is being required to do just the opposite.”

    The Supreme Court decision didn’t really redefine marriage. The significant thing about marriage is that it is a union between two adult human beings who, hopefully, love each other. Allowing both to be the same gender is a very minor tweak or expansion . . . unless you suffer from Gender Obsession Disorder.

  • Susan

    As an aside, Laura, you don’t understand who the Pharisees were. Their depiction in the “New Testament” is completely distorted and inaccurate.

    The Supreme Court can override state laws. That is what ended segregation. If state laws had prevailed. Segregation would have never ended.

    Gays and lesbians are just people who want the same rights as everyone else. They are not evil. Some of them are very religious people which is why they want to marry. The Bible is the best understanding of God of a people at a certain time and place. That understanding changes over the centuries.

  • GoldenFinger

    Completely agree with “Brad”. The US Constitution, whether we like it or not is above KY’s… sorry folks, that’s just the way it is.

  • GoldenFinger

    Great opinion piece Laura Turner. I, personally, don’t agree with marriage between two men or two women. However, I have to keep my personal opinion personal or find a legal means for expressing it (I have that right) without stepping on somebody else’s rights. And this woman is obviously moved by bigotry and a messed-up sense of “right or wrong”. It’s not up to her to decide. These folks have the right to get these licenses, period. Whether we like it, agree with it, celebrate it or whatnot, it’s their legal right. So no, this Kim Davis is not even close to being a Rosa Parks. End of story.

  • Garson Abuita

    If the terms of her employment had been set by contract, she might have a valid argument that the terms had been changed and there was a breach. But that isn’t how her job works. Her job is to carry out the laws of the jurisdiction. So put Obergefell aside for the moment. Are you saying that if Kentucky passes a law allowing same-sex marriage, she can refuse to grant licenses because that wasn’t the law when she was elected?

  • Jack

    The Supreme Court has ruled and its ruling is the law of the land. And those who break that law will suffer legal penalties.

    But that doesn’t mean the Supreme Court’s ruling was a correct one. If it isn’t, it wouldn’t be the first time. There have been a number of Supreme Court rulings which were wrongly decided, based as they were on a misapplication of what the Constitution says.

    The problem with the one on same-sex marriage is that although the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause can be readily applied to marriage, it is not a court’s job to define or redefine what the word, “marriage” means. That’s what legislatures do. Courts are there to decide, giving an existing legislative definition, whether a couple fitting the existing definition have been wrongly denied what other couples fitting that same definition were granted. It’s again for legislatures and not courts to embrace or change definitions of words in statutes.

  • Jack

    Note how labman went far beyond criticizing Ms. Davis’ actions to attacking anyone who dares to disagree with his position on gay marriage.

    And note that it’s a very old tactic for wannabe persecutors like labman to accuse the ones they aim to persecute of being the persecutors.

    Anti-Semites, for example, have regularly used labman’s tactics against Jews, attacking them as narrow and intolerant and hateful, in an obvious attempt to push them totally to the margins of society. Those who dared to stand up to such bullies were treated with similar distain, to discourage such voices of decency.

    Labman, you’re the real bigot, because you want to shut down anybody who dissents from your views, rather than engage in honest and thoughtful debate. You’d rather crush others than convert them, because you’re insecure of your own position and don’t believe you can defend it with skill and success.

  • Jack

    Richard, of course SCOTUS redefined marriage. That’s the problem. Redefining words in laws and statutes normally is the job of legislative not judicial bodies. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has behaved as a legislature many times throughout its history…..with neither liberal nor conservative jurists immune from this temptation.

    So this was no anomaly. The Court took the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, correctly assumed it could be applied to marriage, but then incorrectly applied it by first redefining the word, “marriage.”

    The way equal protection works regarding marriage is that given the existing definition of marriage, ie what a relevant statute says about marriage, any couple that qualifies should be able to get married and any couple that fits the definition but is refused marriage is being illegally discriminated against.

  • Jack

    Susan, yes, the Supreme Court can override any law it deems unconstitutional. And once it does, that’s the law of the land. Those who oppose it will be penalized.

    But not every Supreme Court ruling is the right ruling. Sometimes SCOTUS errs, most often when its rulings reflect the personal biases of justices rather than what the Constitution says. Both liberal and conservative justices have erred throughout history.

    You’re right about the Pharisees; Laura doesn’t get it.

    But you’re mistaken about the NT. In NT times, most Pharisees were from the legalistic House of Shammai. After the Temple’s destruction, the House of Hillel became the Pharisees’ dominant school, and the Judaism of the 20 succeeded centuries reflected the gentleness of Hillel more than the harshness of Shammai. You can’t blame the NT for reflecting the reality of its time — that most Pharisees were of Shammai and Shammai’s school was quite legalistic.

  • Jack

    No, GoldenFinger, Ms. Davis was not “obviously moved by bigotry,” unless you accept the (bigoted) premise that anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is a bigot by definition.

    The obvious answer is that it depends on the person. Someone who is against gay marriage because gay people make their flesh crawl is a bigot. But someone who opposes gay marriage only because of fidelity to the Bible which they believe teaches that marriage is a unique institution that blesses unions of male and female not a bigot. Anyone who claims not to know or understand the difference is either being disingenuous for propagandistic reasons or hasn’t thought this issue through very deeply.

  • Jack,

    “But someone who opposes gay marriage only because of fidelity to the Bible which they believe teaches that marriage is a unique institution that blesses unions of male and female not a bigot.”

    A bigoted philosophy doesn’t protect its followers from responsibility for the bigotries therein.

    Religions are just ideas and holding a bigoted idea is a depravity.
    When Southern Baptists claimed slavery of blacks protected by God as a Holy right of white people in 1845, the followers of that religion were rightly held personally responsible.

    And Ayatollah Rafsanjani is not absolved from responsibility by Islam for his bigotry against Jews.
    Zionists are not absolved by Judaism for their bigotry against Palestinians.
    Nazis were not absolved by their Aryan Catholicism.

    But you’d like it if people could hide from responsibility by cloaking themselves in religion, wouldn’t you?
    Shame on you. Again.

  • Garson Abuita

    Which of the justices were involved in the gay rights movement to an extent that would require recusal?

  • Garson Abuita

    It would be ironic if most of the Pharisees portrayed in the NT were from the House of Shammai, because the incident in Matthew 19 is so often quoted by Christians denying the right to/existence of same-sex marriage. The Pharisees approach Jesus and ask if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. This, in fact, was the position of the House of Hillel based on Deut. 24:1. Jesus’s response reveals him to agree with Shammai on this point: divorce only for sexual immorality.

  • Larry

    Except in this case SCOTUS was correct and you have no valid criticism of their decision. The anti-gay crowd could not come up with rational and secular reasons for a gay marriage ban. They could not show their ban had any kind of legal merit. That is why they lost. Not “leftist activist judges” or “emotional rulings”.

    “it is not a court’s job to define or redefine what the word, “marriage” means.”

    It is their job when reviewing the constitutionality of legislature which defines what marriage means. Had the bigots not instituted legislative gay marriage bans, SCOTUS would have no opportunity to be involved at all. They opened the door to judicial action. They found the ban violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, they were in their power to invalidate all gay marriage bans.

    The “definition” argument was never used before SCOTUS because it is so ignorant and in such bad faith, the lawyers would be sanctioned for making frivolous…

  • Larry

    Considering its a position bereft of rational and moral support, its worthy of attack. You have a position which is dependent on either claiming you or God hates gays. There is nothing to respect there. Asking for bigotry to be given color of law is not something that deserves to be treated with gentle respect. Its repugnant to the sensibilities of those who value freedom.

    You are being “crushed” in that people are nottaking you seriously. No reason why your view should. Nobody is silencing you. They just think you are full of crap.

  • Larry

    Actually the state legislatures redefined marriage when they banned gay marriage. SCOTUS simply found those definitions to be unconstitutional and discriminatory. Had bigots not tried to make new definitions of marriage law, SCOTUS would not be able to rule on the subject.

    ” Redefining words in laws and statutes normally is the job of legislative not judicial bodies. ”

    200+ years of judicial review says otherwise. It is the job of the judiciary to define what laws and statutes mean in light of present conflicts.

  • Larry

    But you can’t come up with a real reason why you think they erred other than ruling against your position. The anti-gay crowd came up empty on rational and secular arguments to support a gay marriage ban. The ones posed before the court ranged from the irrelevant to the completely brain-damaged. That is why they lost.

    You still can’t come up with one. That is why you harp on collateral attacks on it by wrongly claiming SCOTUS lacked authority to rule or talk of “redefinition” or “tradition”. You have nothing to say on the merits of your position.

  • Larry

    “premise that anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is a bigot by definition.”

    Since they lack any kind of rational or moral reasons for doing so, they are. Its like saying anyone who supported segregation was a racist. Of course they were.

    Kim Davis is a bigot who thought her religious belief was more important than the rights of the public and her obligations as a government official.

  • Jack

    Larry, how do you navigate life with such abysmal reading comprehension skills? Try reading the post again and this time responding in a way that shows at least some understanding of what was said.

  • Jack

    You’re correct about one thing, Larry: Nobody is silencing me….or you or anyone here. That’s what the drafters of the Declaration of Independence called “self-evident.” Were it otherwise, we wouldn’t all be posting, would we.

    Of course, you’re the one who once posted that God is not in the Declaration, so clearly you haven’t read it, making the bit about “self-evident” equally foreign to you.

    No surprise, then, that you have at best a French, rather than an American, understanding of freedom. You might as well have stumbled off the boat yesterday. Were that so, it might explain your nagging problem with reading comprehension.

    Watching you get knocked repeatedly on your back by Shawnie, and then declaring victory in between wheezes, makes me wonder whether you’re part Palestinian. It seems that’s what they do each time they pick a fight with Israel and lose. They act like they won, and hope nobody notices the obvious.

  • Jack

    Larry, don’t be ridiculous. You can’t redefine what has always been.

    And no, it’s not the job of courts to redefine anything. It’s the job of courts to interpret the meaning of a law or statute within the context of authorial intent and then rule accordingly on its constitutionality. It is not the job of courts to make something mean something other than what the authors meant it to mean. That’s simple dishonesty…..

    How would you like it if somebody did that to you….and interpreted your own words in a way that contradicted your intent when you wrote or uttered them? You wouldn’t like it one bit.

    Fine. Then don’t condone it when it’s being done to others.

  • Jack

    Correct Garson. I’m not sure how that relates to the issue of same-sex marriage and admittedly haven’t given it any thought, but you’re right on the subject of ease of divorce. Most Christians would agree with Shammai more than Hillel on that issue.

  • Jack

    Larry, I’ve repeatedly posted why I believe SCOTUS erred on the same-sex marriage ruling but you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Not sure why, but it keeps surfacing.

    Basically, the court redefined the word, “marriage” to include same-sex unions, and then concluded that states that barred same-sex marriages violated the equal protection clause of the 14th on the marriage issue.

    It was a form of circular reasoning, but it got the majority the result it wanted.

  • Jack

    So based on your dubious logic, virtually every person who ever lived, from theist to atheist, straight to gay, in every culture — from prudish to libertine — and under every government — from dictatorial to democratic — until less than a generation ago, was a “bigot.”

    You have no idea how ridiculous you sound.

  • Jack

    Max, you are literally arguing in circles.

    I don’t accept your premise that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted. That is to say, there is nothing inherently bigoted in maintaining the view of literally every society in human history, strict or libertine, democracy or dictatorship, pro-gay or anti-gay, primitive or advanced, that marriage is between male and female.

    But that is not the same as saying that nobody who opposes gay marriage is bigoted. Of course there are people who oppose it because they hate gay people. That is obvious.

    But to call all opponents bigots is to call virtually 100% of all people who have ever lived, from evil tyrants to wonderful humanitarians and everyone in between, bigots on this issue.

    Once you take a position that paints you into that absurd a corner, you really have to engage in some self-reflection and ask who the bigot really is.

    Maybe it is you.

  • Jack

    And yes, Garson, I agree that is indeed ironic….ie that the Christian position on divorce is much closer to Shammai than to Hillel, given that Shammai’s school is seemingly the one that’s otherwise under fire in the NT.

  • Jihadi Jimmy

    Jack, you understood nothing. I was correcting your obvious errors. Your whole argument is based on a lack of understanding of the judicial system. Your unwillingness to address what I said is merely a concession that you have no legitimate point to make.

    You are just going to repeat the same willfully ignorant stuff again. After all its all you have.

  • Larry

    Jack, you understood nothing. I was correcting your obvious errors. Your whole argument is based on a lack of understanding of the judicial system. Your unwillingness to address what I said is merely a concession that you have no legitimate point to make.

    You are just going to repeat the same willfully ignorant stuff again. After all its all you have.

  • Larry

    I love how you just go to the personal attack rather than address a word I said. How typically Jack. Nothing to refute what I said that your position is inherently bigoted as it seeks to attack civil liberties of others and lacks any kind of moral, legal or rational support.

    God is not in the declaration. A “Creator” is. You naturally assumed it was your God. That was the point. A Rorschach test of belief where one saw what they wished from it. You are still spouting off ignorantly.

    So what is so “French” about the 1st Amendment. You obviously only believe half of it exists. You always forget about that pesky Establishment Clause and how it protects Free Exercise by preventing official sectarian discrimination. Your view is much like how Iran’s government protects the exercise of religion, provided its the official one of Shiite Islam.

  • Larry

    Jack, your “definition” argument was so silly that they didn’t even bother to argue it in support of gay marriage bans before any courts.
    So does that mean you are some kind of legal genius who somehow found the loophole that 15 separate conservative legal organizations missed? No. It means you are making an argument that had no possible basis for support. You can stop repeating Mat Staver’s silly arguments now.

    ” It is not the job of courts to make something mean something other than what the authors meant it to mean. ”

    Of course it is. It is the job of courts to interpret the law in the way which provides the best, legally supported, resolution to the conflict at hand using any number of methods. Plain language meaning always takes precedent to alleged authorial intent. Precedent is another. The results of prior interpretations also is used.

    It also didn’t help that the anti-gay crowd lacked valid arguments on the merits of a ban as well.

  • Larry

    No you have claimed SCOTUS lacked the real authority to rule as they did. Attacking methods, not substance of arguments. You are dead wrong anyway. Once definitions of marriage were put on the table by the state legislatures, SCOTUS was open to make the determinations. You always conveniently omit what brought the issue before them in the first place.

    You never gave legitimate rational and secular reasons for a gay marriage ban. You never will. That is why SCOTUS ruled as it did. That is why you continue making arguments which were so silly even the lawyers supporting gay marriage bans didn’t bother using them.

    You don’t have a reading comprehension issue. You have an honesty issue. So explaining all of this to you is a waste of time. You are just going to repeat the same nonsense again.

  • Larry

    What is dubious about calling people who support legalized discrimination against a given class of people bigots?

    That is a pretty standard definition of it.

    Especially when their reasons for doing so are both irrational and immoral. Its a given. Just because the label has a negative connotation, does not mean it is not true.

  • ben in oakland

    Actually, jack, they redefined gay people as no longer the moral, legal, cultural, religious, and human inferiors of the likes of Josh Duggar.

  • ben in oakland

    Jack, that just makes them a religious bigot.

  • ben in oakland

    Straw man argument, Jack.

    I don’t believe that by itself, opposition to gay marriage is necessarily bigoted. But they never, EVER leave it at that,. EVER.

    read the comments here. Read statements by NOM.

  • ben in oakland

    The civil rights act did not redefine civil rights. It redefined black people as full citizens, entitled to exactly the same equality before the law as white people .

    Giving women the right to vote did not redefine voting. It redefined women as full citizens, no longer the property and chattel of men.

    COTUS did not redefine marriage, because marriage has not changed. Not one bit. They redefined gay people AS FULL CITIZENS– along with our lives, loves, families, children, faith, and assets.

    not one thing has changed for heterosexuals or for heterosexual marriage. If you think that it has, then please indicate what it might be.

  • Jack

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practice to deceive!”
    ~ Sir Walter Scott (1771–1832).

    Larry, you just got busted — but you busted yourself with your “Jihadi Jimmy” guise.

    Maybe you’ll learn your lesson this time — and not make up new names for yourself so you can pretend to be someone else.

    Think about it: If you’re secure enough in your own opinions, you don’t have to play any of these games.

    But you’re not — and so you do.

  • Jack

    Oh, by the way, Larry, I’m saving your little mistake, so you won’t be able to lie again about your lying about pretending to be other people.

  • Jack

    Well, Larry, it looks like you “outed” yourself with your “Jihadi Jimmy” mistake earlier today on this board.

    That’s the problem with making up new names for yourself. All it takes is one mistake and you’re busted.

    Honesty is the best policy — try it sometime.

  • Jack

    Ben, that begs the question:

    Under our system, should they be doing it or should a legislature be doing it?

    Put another way, just as it is possible for someone to be pro-choice on abortion but against Roe v. Wade, it is possible for someone to be pro-gay-marriage but against the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. I don’t fit these descriptions but I know people who do.

    The point is that we’re not dealing here with one issue but two.

    The first issue is gay marriage itself but the second issue is which branch of government, based on the Constitution, should be making the decision.

    Substance matters, yes, but process is equally important in a democracy. Process may not matter to activists who are focused on the justice of their one cause and don’t care how they achieve their desired result so long as it’s achieved, but it should matter to them as well as everybody else because process is what makes rights possible and protected in the first place.

  • Jack

    Larry, when should I call you Larry and when should I call you “Jihadi Jimmy,” your name at 10:10 AM on this board?

  • Jack

    Ben, we agree on this, my sole point. To equate a failure to support gay marriage with automatic bigotry is to consign every conceivable type of person living in every culture in history until less than a generation to the status of bigot. If we were living in any other time or place, including where homosexuality was celebrated, and we asked both straight and gay people what they thought about redefining marriage to include gay unions, they would simply ask, “why?”

    If you were to ask famous gay people from the past what they wanted from society, I would bet that almost to a man or woman, they’d say something like this:

    “What do I want, Jack? To be left alone to live my life as I see fit. To love whom I want, whenever I want, for as long as I want, for life if I choose, and to be sure that through law, what’s mine is my lover’s if I so choose, before and after death.”

    That’s what I’d have heard.

  • Jack

    Larry (or perhaps I should call you “Jihadi Jimmy” — as per your post of 10:10 AM today), you’re spinning like a top.

    Just like you blew your cover this morning, proving that you post under names other than your own and then lie about it, so are you looking foolish in doubling down on your nonsensical statement about God not being in the Declaration of Independence. Creator and God mean the same thing — a sole Supreme Being who made us and the universe.

    And the context back then was clear: I said the Declaration proclaims that all human rights come from a Supreme Being, and you responded with your embarrassing error.

  • Ben in Oakland

    Well jack, you could have made the same argument about Brown v. Board of education. And no one but gay people complained when it Bowers v. Hardwick. Even the supreme court admitted they had made a mistake, as did Lewis Powell immediately after the fact.

    Up until this decision, the usual stance was that gay people could only be defined as full human and full citizens by the legislatures, because they had been busy defining us as not fully human and not fully citizens for quite a long time.

    When YOU are defined as being less than a full human being and less than a full and equal citizen for your entire life, then it might be appropriate for you to talk about it.

    But if that is indeed the issue– and I think that it is– then it is entirely appropriate that the court did it.

  • Jack

    Larry, why do you think “plain meaning” matters in the first place? It’s usually (though not always) the best clue of authorial intent.

    You’re really in space on this issue. How do you think any utterance or writing of anyone who has ever lived is interpreted? Obviously in accordance with what the utterer or writer intended to communicate.

    The alternative is the abandonment of any semblance of objective meaning on anything. If all communication is completely cut off from what the communicator intended to say, what you have is bedlam and the death of communication as we know it.

    But then again, children find honesty a lighter lift than some adults do.

  • Ben in Oakland

    This is not easy to address in 100 characters.

    We progress, Jack. Hopefully we progress. And that is the issue here.

    I don’t define them as bigots because they were unenlightened, or because they opposed gay marriage before it was ever thought of.

    I would define them as bigots because of their willingness to treat gay people as garbage for 2000 years, including murder, jails, torture, prison, vilification, and the destruction of innocent lives. Christianity wasn’t complaining about the treatment of the Jews for 2000 years; it wasn’t in their DNA, starting with Acts, the gospel of john, and proceeding right to my lifetime. “God almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.” F. Bailey smith, SBC, around 1977.

    But that didn’t make them not bigots.

    As I say, when it comes to gay people, if they just left it at “I don’t believe marriage should apply to gay people, their “bigotry” has less bigot in it. But the NEVER leave it at that.

    that makes them bigots NOW.

  • Jack

    Ben, you’re confusing two branches of government and their respective functions — judicial and legislative.

    The Civil Rights Act was an act of Congress — a legislative act.

    That’s where redefinition can happen, because that’s part of what legislatures do.

    If marriage means one thing and we as a society decide to redefine it, the place to do it is through a legislature. We can pass a law — or a constitutional amendment — specifying the redefinition.

    And that would be perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional.

    But courts can’t do that….Courts can look at existing law or statutes and rule on their constitutionality….they can’t redraft, rewrite, or redefine. Again, that’s for legislatures.

    When it comes to gay marriage, the Constitution is totally silent on the matter. And where the Constitution is silent, the people through their elected representatives get to choose what to do or not do.

  • Jack

    Larry (or should I call you “Jihadi Jimmy,” as per your post on this board at 10:10 AM), you’re all over the map on this one, assume you’re being truthful, which may be a stretch since you’ve now been caught red-handed making up a new name for yourself — a well-known practice of yours which you’ve previously denied.

    You are confusing two things — first, the rationale for opposing same-sex marriage itself, and second, the rationale for opposing the SCOTUS ruling imposing same-sex marriage.

    We are at present focused on the latter, but I see you’ve blended the two in a bout of intellectual confusion.

    You, like Max, need to stay mentally focused on one thing at a time….otherwise the conversation turns to chaos.

    But maybe that’s the way you want it, since your positions are inherently indefensible.

  • Jack

    Ben, on Bowers v. Hardwick, I believe the majority erred, because I do believe that there is something akin to a right to privacy in the Constitution. And if I am correct, that means that sodomy laws are unconstitutional and thus Bowers was decided wrongly.

    And BTW, while Roe v. Wade depended on a right to privacy, I would maintain that right to privacy alone was insufficient grounds to arrive at Roe’s conclusion. The argument falls apart once you bring in right to life.

    Nonetheless, so long as life isn’t involved, right to privacy — or something like it — matters. Thus I think Bowers was wrongly decided.

    However, I do understand that principled arguments can be made about right to privacy being too broad and vague a right….I get it…..I understand principled opposition to Bowers based on that objection. I just don’t in the end agree.

  • Jack

    Ben, I’ve explained my position on Bowers, which was overturned in the 1990s, I believe. I assume it’s yours, too. I presume we both opposed it.

    But I’m trying to see the connection between that and the gay marriage ruling. Regarding Bowers, there are more than enough indicators in the Constitution that something like a right to privacy is implicit.

    But as to a redefinition of marriage, the Constitution doesn’t say or imply anything, meaning that it falls to states and legislatures to decide. SCOTUS tried to hang its hat on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, meaning you bar couple B from marriage if you let couple A get married. True enough, but only so long as both couples qualify for marriage under its existing definition. The equal protection clause defends gay marriage only after a relevant legislature redefines the word, “marriage” to include gay unions. Otherwise, we’re arguing in circles.

  • Jack

    Ben, let me repost a portion of my post, due to a typo:

    But as to a redefinition of marriage, the Constitution doesn’t say or imply anything, meaning that it falls to states and legislatures to decide. SCOTUS tried to hang its hat on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, meaning you can’t bar couple B from marriage if you let couple A get married. True enough, but only so long as both couples qualify for marriage under its existing definition. The equal protection clause defends gay marriage only after a relevant legislature has already redefined the word, “marriage” to include gay unions. Otherwise, we’re arguing in circles.

  • Jack

    Larry — or should I say “Jihadi Jimmy,” the name you gave yourself at 10:10 AM on this board — there is nothing inherently bigoted about either being for or against gay marriage. Anybody with an ounce of sense in their head can figure that one out. When the result of a position paints you into the absurd corner I just described — you against the entire human race until about the turn of the century — it’s time to reassess.

    That’s the trouble with extremist positions…..they are absurd on their face and lead only to more absurdity once you flesh them out in real life.

  • Jack

    Ben — Agreed that it’s hard to say all we want to say in this limited space. That’s my challenge, too.

    Christian anti-Semitism isn’t the greatest example because the original Christians were Jews and the first Gentile Christians were pro-Jewish since the NT, paralleling the OT, had the Jews as the ultimate heroes despite the vicissitudes of their history.

    In other words, its wasn’t that Christian anti-Semitism was the primitive beginning and today’s philo-Semitism the enlightened evolution from the primitive. It was the other way around. The original was enlightened, Christian anti-Semitism was a regressive departure, and today’s philo-Semitism a return to the beginning. And the proof is that the Christians today who are most pro-Jewish are overwhelmingly Christians who take the New Testament as well as OT literally. That strongly suggests the text itself, and hence the origin of the faith itself, was philo-Semitic or pro-Jewish.

  • Jack

    And regarding John’s Gospel, the mistranslation of a single Greek word, “ioudaioi,” was behind that Gospel’s seeming to be anti-Semitic. Like the Hebrew word, “yehudim,” it meant one of two things — Jews or Judeans.

    Background: Virtually all of the early disciples, including John, were Jews from Galilee, as opposed to Jews from Judea. As a Galilean Jew, John used the word, “ioudaioi” most often as a mostly pejorative short-hand for the leaders of Judea headquartered in Jerusalem. The leaders were the chief priests who were Roman lackeys whom most Jews rightly distrusted and even despised. The Talmud’s criticism of that generation of priests is withering.

    As for John, or the writer of that Gospel, he was almost certainly a first-century Galilean Jew — as evidenced by his deep and accurate knowledge of pre-70 CE Israel — both Galilee and Judea before the Romans basically obliterated that whole world and left mounds of rubble in its place.

  • Ken

    I respectfully disagree. If marriage is holy (we call it Holy Matrimony for a reason), then same sex marriage is a desecration of something holy.
    For the government to insist that a Christian “approve or authorize” a desecration of something that is holy is a violation of the freedom of religion.
    The document states (This is from Georgia): To any Judge, Magistrate, Minister of the Gospel, or any other person authorized to solemnize: You are hereby authorized to join in the Holy State of Matrimony [Groom’s Name] and [Bride’s Name] according to the Constitution and Laws of the State, and for doing so shall be your sufficient license. [Date of license issue and signature of clerk]
    Not all Christians view marriage as holy or treat it as something holy. But if they do, they should be accommodated and not forced to authorize blasphemy. Just let them write “Obergefell v. Hodges” on the line authorizing the marriage instead of putting them in jail for refusing to violate their…