September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« A Secular Argument for Intrinsic Human Value | Main | Ratio Christi Symposium and Student Retreat in October »

September 04, 2015


'When an official can no longer execute the laws in question due to an assault on conscience, and after all accommodating measures have been exhausted) ... (emphasis mine)' Considering there are 120 county clerks in the state, and that 117 of them had and have no problem issuing SSM licenses, I find it hard to believe 'all accommodating measures' were exhausted.

Okay, to complete my above thought ... 120 county clerks in the state, 117 of whom had and have no problem issuing SSM licenses, and now that Ms. Davis is in jail they're apparently issuing SSM licenses from her office, I find it hard to swallow that 'all accommodating measures' were exhausted in this case.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were given an ultimatum. Either worship the golden image or perish in flames. They did not have a third option, just quit and go home. Would they have been right to choose perishing in flames instead of simply quitting and going home?

This post focuses on the lines between civil disobedience and the rule of law. I would submit there should be equal focus on the line between "rule of law" and "what a judge/senator/president/etc says" and thus when the former has ended.

Personally I believe a strong argument can be made that the rule of law is indeed dead in America. For further on this distinction I would invite a read on this blog:

If she won't do the job, then she needs to go.

Issuing a license to everyone who applies and meets all the legal requirements is part of the job she agreed to do

If she were objecting to issuing the license because she is Muslim, there would be no firing. She'd be re-assigned to a different department where she does not need to issue the license.

Everyone knows this.

I support Kim because I struggle with Christians being driven out of the government, the military and businesses. Based upon this situation, should we willingly give up government service, military service and our businesses at the first conflict?

I have been anxious to hear how STR would approach this, and I am glad to see how you have presented the many options. It is also one of the very few posts that shows the viewpoint that Andrew Walker takes. For most of the Christian responses I am seeing, there is no mention of the special nuance that exists between public servant of the government and private citizen.

One detail that is emerging from this is that in these small towns, nearly everyone is related to someone else. Her own son sits under her as a clerk from what I understand (correct me if I am wrong). Earlier in this fight, she closed the clerk office under the auspices of "we're upgrading software." To the outsider this is small town chicanery and really makes her and her family run "club" look bad. Christians do not need to deal in subterfuge when they are in the right and justified.

Another nuance here is the fact that she is pulling down $80K per year plus some nice KY state benefits from the same entity that she is opposing. I would argue that the truly brave thing would be to say - as a government official, I am going to yield to the direct orders of my state Governor, and be willing to step away from my cushy .gov job in order to avoid participating in actions I deem to be wrong. She can still use her lawyer to pursue legal recourse, and her arguments will either prevail or not. The state can go about its wicked course, she stays out of jail, and right with God, and she can still pursue legal redress.

Let's apply Doug Wilson's "doctrine of the lesser magistrate" business to Roe v. Wade. According to him, Kim Davis, and everyone who supports her, a Christian sheriff should arrest doctors who perform abortions, for murder. A Christian judge and jury should then convict the doctor for multiple counts of premeditated murder, Roe notwithstanding. The judge should sentence the doctor either to life imprisonment or to death, whichever is applicable in that particular state. If a writ of habeas corpus issues from a Federal court, it should be run through the shredder.

Is this what Doug Wilson would promote? Or does he somehow think that Obergefell merits a revolt by local officials, but not Roe?

Philip, a more even comparison would be if she was an OB/GYN and the court handed down a ruling ordering her to perform abortions. She isn't trying to impose her faith on everyone, she is asking not to be forced to compromise her faith.

Diane Davis,

No, a better analogy would be if she ...

* was hired by the county specifically to perform certain abortions,
* promised the county (took an oath) to perform those abortions,
* refused to perform those abortions,

and THEN the court handed down a ruling ordering her to perform those abortions.

@ RonH

Still no response to me on the Planned Parenthood post. Why is that?

I'm not sure why this has to be so complicated. (I'm not saying it isn't a terrible ordeal for her. Of course it is.) But the principle is straightforward. As followers of Christ, we cannot obey commands that go directly against Scripture.

This is simply a foretaste of what's to come. The Sexual Anarchy Crowd have declared open war on Christians. They will not rest until we are all silenced, one way or another.

It's a terrifying thought to know you may lose your job, perhaps then your home, etc. It's terrifying to know you may go to jail. But the truth is that we have been fortunate in America for a long, long time. But for Christians in much of the rest of the world, treatment like this is the norm. And MUCH worse than this.

The Sexual Anarchists are now being open about their utter hatred of us. I prefer the honesty. But no matter what it costs us, we must not give in to this bullying.

May God give us all strength to stand strong!

Let's face it - we are in a battle between Satan and God. The Christian community does not seem to be united when it comes to basing our decisions on scripture. There are some so-called Christian leaders who seem to know some theology but do not know the God of the Bible and make statements that do not line up with scriptural guidelines. As for the gay lifestyle, there are enough examples of those who were involved in that manner of relationships and were delivered by the power of God that should show us that it is a demonic activity. But not many churches are that involved with the Holy Spirit to help those who want out and apparently some do. One of those churches is in Miami, Florida where is has happened according to their accounting of it. Namely, King Jesus Ministry. Anyone can look it up online and find out some things that have happened there. God said He is not willing that any should perish and neither should those of us who belong to his kingdom. I wonder if Kim Davis likes to sing - look what happened when Paul and Silas did it.

An idea that continued development in the Reformation was the Law of the Lesser Magistrate. That is, the Government is worthy of respect and regard. But that Government is under the rule of King Jesus. When the Government usurps His rule, a lesser magistrate may void unlawful rulings of the Government.

Kim Davis might be small fish, but she's a lesser magistrate. It's the Government that's the criminal.

@ Bob,

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14)

I leaning toward "If your job requires you to do something that goes against your faith, you should get a new job."

Thanks for admitting it is a complex and difficult question - something few seem to be willing to do.

The Church should give Kim an out.

Here's how.

The Pope, and the head of every Protestant denomination that still believes the teachings of the Bible should declare what is, in fact, true in any case:

  1. That state marriages are not marriages in the eyes of God.
  2. That you get real marriages at church, and at church alone.
  3. That marriage licenses issued by the state have no more moral or spiritual significance than hunting licenses.
  4. That to be really married, it is neither necessary, nor sufficient that you get a state marriage license.
Then Kim doesn't have to worry about issuing meaningless state licenses that style themselves as 'marriage licenses' any more than she has to worry about issuing fishing licenses or fictitious business names.

The current law on the book is a State Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as one man one woman. So over a hundred other clerks in this state are in violation while the law abiding clerk is in jail.

The judiciary is not the legislative mechanism. If the SCOTUS ruling is accepted as valid (separate discussion) then the legislative mechanism still needs to be put in place to equip all clerks to act lawfully. The rule of law is the issue. There was no widespread public fury over Conway refusing his Constitutional duties to defend that amendment, nor was he jailed, but here we are.


No, it's not complicated.

The clerk's job is just to officially record some facts.

One of these facts is that the couple presented the necessary documentation that they were of age.

That is the full extent of the clerks role.

How does that role interfere with practicing Christianity?

I'm actually almost in agreement with Ron on this.

The issuing of a state marriage licence now really is just the meaningless bureaucratic act he describes.

I just think that the Church should make it clear that the symbol "marriage" on the state-issued paper has as much to do with what the Church practices as cats and combs have to do with catacombs.

The issuing of a state marriage licence now really is just the meaningless bureaucratic act he describes.


This is not new.

There's a reason we call them 'clerks'.

They are record keepers. They produce and maintain records.

Why does a government need to record marriages?

Because having a legally defined and securely kept record of a marriage simplifies matters that courts and other branches of government are frequently brought into later. Like divorce and child support. Inheritance.

Why is it a three step process? License, then 'marriage', then recording the 'marriage'?

Because establishing that the prerequisites are met beforehand saves everyone a lot of grief.

It could be all done at once if done by the clerk. But a lot of people don't want to 'get married' by the clerk.

So we set it up so that the clerk records that the prerequisites are met, then someone else 'marries' the couple, then the clerk records that.

No. It's new.

Because the symbol 'marriage' used to be linked to the ancient institution that forms the basis of families which in turn forms the basis of civilization.

By court decree, that symbol is no longer linked to the ancient institution, but is now nothing more than a convenient tax and regulatory loophole. Kind of like forming an S-corp to avoid paying certain taxes.

Who, in the end, really cares that a government drone declared you married? Lawyers and bureaucrats. People don't really give a rip.

"Best wishes on your Marriage!"

"Best wishes on your S-corp!"

"Best wishes on your Non-Disclosure Argeement!"



We were talking about state issued marriage licenses and records not your idea of marriage.

Those records have not changed.

In particular, they didn't change that Friday, June 26, 2015.

All that's new is that in the USA counties now record these relationships even if they involve members of the same sex.

These records continue to serve the same function.

Long term same sex relationships stem from antiquity too (not that it matters any more than your reference to antiquity matters) though they have been less common and hated here and there.

we can hate sin and love democracy

we can hate sin and love our pluralistic society ruled where every person should be treated the same under the law

we can hate sin and also hate, false piety, sanctimony, self-righteousness, prooftexting and hypocritical judgement

we should be careful answering the call of cults just because they might agree with us on one small area. Rastafarians, White Nations Church, Tony Alamo, Jim Jones, Branch Davidians and other cults love Jesus and hate homosexuality just like Kim Davis' cult does.

The meaning of the symbol "marriage" changed on Friday, June 26, 2015.

If, on Friday, June 26, 2015, the meaning of the symbol "fishing" had changed to refer to hunting, would fishing licences be the same as they were on Thursday?

"It’s difficult because there are so many issues involved and goods to weigh, and I’m still trying to separate my feelings about the unfairness of singling out Kim Davis (as opposed to other officials who refuse to do their job) from the question of what Kim Davis should do."

It seems the focus should be on exactly WHY the official would refuse to do their job.

For Christians, when our job requires us to something that morally evil and directly against what Scripture says, we cannot obey that.

For someone who lived most of her life a rebel against
God and came to know HIM just four years ago, you would
think she would have compassion on the lost and lead
them to Christ. She instead became very SELF RIGHTEOUS.

Check out Micah 6:8 "He has showed you O man, what is right and what the Lord requires of you? To act justly
and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God".

Wouldn't it have been nice to hand the same sex couple
a track leading them to Jesus Christ?

The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26–27).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).

But God’s displeasure with acting out on homosexuality is depicted as early as Genesis 19 in the Old Testament. Also see Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Yes, interpretation is important. If interpretation were left up to us as individuals, we could make the Bible say whatever we want it to say, and our sinful natures could gravitate toward interpretations that serve our passions. That is why, ultimately, the Church reserves the right to interpret Scripture to herself. "For all of that has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God" (Dei Verbum 12).

The comments to this entry are closed.