What are Democrats to do when they can’t make same-sex marriage the law of the land in America by going through the legislative process?
Count on the U.S. courts and president to do it for them, of course.
At least that’s according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who declared Thursday that the Supreme Court handed America a victory on same-sex marriage that Democrats “couldn’t get legislatively” but had to be achieved through “the courts.”
“Just to place where we are in context from the standpoint of Congress, when we came into the majority we had four points, it was a four-legged stool of what we wanted to accomplish,” Pelosi said at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol that promoted HR 3185, known as the Equality Act, legislation that amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes from “discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.”
As the first item on the four-point agenda, Pelosi said her party desired a “fully inclusive hate crimes legislation,” and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was pushed through in 2009 and ….
GRAYSON, Ky. — Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has been released from jail, five days after she was held in contempt by a federal judge amid an escalating standoff over marriage licenses.
Davis was jailed at the Carter County Detention Center on Thursday after she refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples. The following day, her deputies began issuing the documents in her absence.
As a condition of her release Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis not to interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses by her office. Continue reading Washington Post article
I said in Part One that the next post was going to be about my personal interpretation of marriage as laid out in the Bible. I also said I was not going to comment on Kim Davis other than to point out her case is what got my wheels a turning about worldviews and marriage. Well, I have to retract that. After much prayer, consideration and a little research I have decided I must issue an opinion. To remain silent is not an option any longer. It never was, I just didn’t realize it at first.
I was all set to do as I planned but then a kind reader left me a couple of comments that need addressing. I hope I can make myself clear without taking up too much of your reading time.
I’ll begin with the reader’s SECOND comment:
The topic of worldviews is interesting, Habermas explains it as “self knowledge”, but that is not enough to build a society, surely democracy is. If everyone acted solely upon their own ‘worldviews or ‘self knowledge’ one could say a psychopath is ok to act on his murderous impulses because he wants to, and one should respect his ‘worldview’. In terms of society, that is not enough, and democracy and laws take a stronger place on the list of considerations than someones worldview. As much as it might restrict us, it also protects us form anyone just doping anything under the premise of their own worldview, self knowledge or individuality. I look forward to hearing your response 🙂 Thanks for responding
Where to start? Okay, yes worldviews can and do shape and build societies. Our founding fathers, though they may have disagreed on particulars, for the most part had a shared worldview. It is this worldview that drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Monarchies and dictatorships are governed by someone’s worldview. Laws are established by someone(s) worldview. Worldviews include a moral code and it is that moral code that dictates what is lawful and unlawful. Sometimes worldviews share similarities. “Murderous impulses” are generally viewed as not okay by most worldviews. Is it really necessary to explain that further?
Secondly, “As much as it might restrict us, it also protects us form anyone just doping anything under the premise of their own worldview, self knowledge or individuality.” Some might argue that is precisely what is happening to Kim Davis. What they say she is guilty of, they also do.
This brings me to comment number ONE:
The problem with Kim Davis is not one of two worldviews opposing, it is a legal one. Respect for the law is an important democratic principle to uphold. Please watch the video, and maybe tell me what you think 🙂 have a good day.
Again, the reader says to respect the law is an important democratic principle to uphold.
I cannot disagree with that, but Ms. Davis isn’t the one guilty of not respecting the law. It is, one could argue, in fact unlawful for her to be in federal jail right now. Let’s take a look at what is going on here:
In Obergefell vs Hodges, the Supreme Court studied and reviewed Section One of the 14th Amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In short, the five judges in the majority decided this applied to same-sex couples having the right to be deemed legally married if they so wished. They (same-sex couples) are not to be deprived of the liberty to marry and the benefits that accompany marriage.
Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, made the decision to not issue marriage licenses after this ruling, citing gay marriage as being contrary to her religion. When faced with the decision to defy the opinion of five judges or defying her God, she chose to defy man. She is now in jail because of it.
Some say that is where she belongs; but is it really?
First of all, she has the right to honor her religion and the first amendment protects her from the government infringing upon her religion.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Ah yes, but she is a government official and it is her job to issue marriage licenses. Look, 1.When she sought and obtained the position of county clerk of Rowan County, marriage licenses were issued to heterosexual couples exclusively. The “rules” of the game were changed while she was in office. My guess is she would not have sought the position if that were not so. 2.The first amendment protects her right to refuse to dishonor her religion. Her being jailed because of her religion is unlawful because the courts are prohibiting her free exercise thereof. Yeah, but, what if a radical Islamist kills his wife and cites his religion are you saying he should not go to prison? No. Murder infringes upon the rights of someone else (the right to life). The gay couples seeking a marriage license from her are not having their “rights” infringed because they could go anywhere else to get the license. If the people of Rowan County do not like Kim Davis’ position, they don’t have to re-elect her.
Secondly, it could be argued that her 14th Amendment rights are being infringed upon as well. What? The same amendment that “gives” same-sex couples the right to marry? Yes, that’s the one! The same argument could be applied to her as well. Her “liberty” to honor her religion is being deprived. Again, these same-sex couples could seek a marriage license elsewhere.
Lastly, I will point out that traditionally marriage is an institution accepted by and determined by both history and culture. The issue of gay marriage is something that should be determined by the people, not forced upon so slyly. The Supreme Court does not write the laws, they do not make the laws, they simply interpret the laws. There have been other cases, such as in 1973 concerning abortion, the SCOTUS decided abortion laws were relatively new and that a review of history showed such.
A review of the history of marriage was apparently not taken into account in this situation.
If the American culture, as dictated by the majority of citizenry, wanted to allow same-sex marriage then it should have been taken to the Legislative Branch and a law/amendment written. As it stands, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution; which is why they had to manipulate the 14th Amendment.
Kim Davis is in jail because she is a conservative Christian who does not tow the line of the anti-Christian movement. Plain and simple.
Lord willing, I will return in Part Three to discuss why the topic of marriage in general, and gay marriage specifically, is such a big deal to Christians.
Kim Davis. Just the mention of this lady’s name continues to spark heated discussion and controversy. Is she a self-righteous bigot, or was she placed in position of Rowan County, Ky, county clerk for such a time as this? I have managed to refrain from sharing any sort of opinion regarding whether I agree with my fellow Christian Kentuckian on social media, and I will not give one here either. This is mainly because I do not know the lady. I do not know her motives. I do not know why she chose to remain in a position to refuse all marriage licenses-she had to know full well the trouble it would cause her-instead of just resigning or allowing her deputies to issue the licenses. I know none of this. I DO know while a lot of people support her, just as many-if not more-hate her. I use the word hate because that is typically the emotion felt when one calls another a bigot. And Kim Davis has been called that a lot in recent days, even by so-called professing Christians. I do not know the particulars and hidden nuances of her case so I will not focus any more of this article on her except to say that her case is the inspiration for this writing.
Since “Kim Davis mania” is every where I look right now, I can’t help but think about the real issue behind it all: worldview.
Worldview is simply the way in which someone interprets and explains the world around them; and everybody has one. I would like to say that Christians have a Biblical Worldview, but that isn’t always the case. There are many who claim to be Christian who express a worldview that is far from what the Bible teaches. I am seeing this more and more each day, and it breaks my heart.
A Biblical Worldview is one in which a person regards the Holy Bible as God’s inerrant Word. It is the final authority on all matters and takes precedent over secular explanations of how the world began, why mankind does what it does, the purpose of life, what happens after death etc. etc.
The gay marriage and Kim Davis controversy is more easily understood when one considers the worldviews involved.
My perusing of the comments about Ms. Davis on Facebook revealed plenty about the worldview of those who call her a bigot, idiot, hypocrite and other slanderous names. To these folks, Ms. Davis did not do her job and deserves to be either jailed or fired or both. Homosexuals deserve all the rights and benefits afforded married folks, the Supreme Court said so, and to think otherwise is akin to being racist and judgmental, full of hate and self-righteousness. Marriage is simply a legal document binding two people who love each other and allows them certain “rights” thus associated with married people, such as being next-of-kin, family insurance, tax benefits etc. For Ms. Davis, or anyone, to deny homosexuals these benefits is discriminatory at best and hateful at worst. It would be safe to say these people have a Humanist Worldview and “tolerance” is their mantra. Funny thing is, this “tolerance” extends to everyone but those who express a Biblical Worldview.
Next among the Facebook commentators are those who are comfortable straddling the fence. They fall somewhere in the middle between a purely humanistic worldview and a Biblical worldview. They profess to be followers of Jesus but often times they regard the Bible as a guideline rather than the living, ever relevant Word of God. I have many Facebook friends who openly admit this. If one were to read their Facebook timelines, one would think God is one who changes with the times. For these people, community outreach and service are key. Don’t get me wrong, these are good things, but the liberal Christian’s focus on tolerance and acceptance (what they call grace) often overrides any call to holiness. They are the “judge not” crowd who says he without sin cast the first stone and completely ignores Jesus’s instruction to “go and sin NO MORE”. Many, though certainly not all, could fall under the description given by Paul as those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. They may also be among those who ask Jesus, “Lord, didn’t we” do this that and the other in “Your name” and to whom Jesus will say “Depart from me, I never knew you”. They may have good intentions and sincere love for their fellow man, but their compromise with those things of the world which God hates, leaves them lacking and deceived. These people regard Kim Davis as a blight on Christianity. They resent her calling homosexuality an abomination before God, because that is being judgmental and intolerant. In short, they follow a watered-down, tickle-your-ears gospel.
There may be other variations of worldview stuck in the middle somewhere, but I will move on to the Biblical Worldview. This group of people are often derided and ridiculed by the first two worldviews. Their dedication of the literal, complete Word of God as manifested in the Bible makes them the center of many jokes and slanderous accusations. This group understands that God is love and perfectly expressed that love by becoming flesh, dwelling among and then dying for mankind (who is sinful by nature and thus in need of a Savior because sin leads to eternal death). They believe He arose from the dead on the third day, claiming victory over death, and thus giving life to all who follow Him and accept His plan of salvation. This group also believes, though, that the Bible teaches God is Holy and Just. They take literally the call to holiness, understanding righteousness can only be obtained through Jesus, but also that those who love Him, obey Him. They believe God when He lists those behaviors which are wicked in His sight as well as those which He finds pleasing. They consider the Bible as God’s authoritative Word on matters of life and death and know that He does not change. What was an abomination 2000 years ago remains so today. They realize the spiritual battle happening all around them and take on His full armor.
In Part Two I will explain my personal interpretation of marriage, which I consider to be that of a purely Biblical worldview. Perhaps this will shed some light on our thoughts and help the other worldviews understand we are not hateful bigots.
It seems like that many, doesn’t it? At least those opting for the Republican nod.
What are your key issues? What determines for whom you vote?
As for me, (in no particular order) I want someone who is:
pro-life: in regards to abortion, infanticide and the elderly
going to lower taxes, reduce spending and work towards a reasonable, balanced budget (are we too far gone for that?)
pro-Israel, remembering that those who bless Israel will be blessed by God
pro-marriage as God intended, between a man and woman
in support of the family unit, recognizing the parents’ rights to rear their children as they see fit so long as the child is provided and cared for, without being physically or emotionally abused. This includes the right to home school.
aware that he/she is a servant of the people
aware they answer to God
in support of teaching the populace to help themselves, not create dependents
in support of all immigrants passing the necessary citizenship tests before receiving any benefits afforded to a citizen such as voting rights, driver’s license, social security, food stamps, welfare etc.
in support of all welfare receipients being actively in search of a job, if not already working, and encourage ways to better one’s financial position (disabled are the exception, where applicable)
in support of teaching abstinence and God’s plan for sex within a marriage
willing to crack down on the dead beat dads and hold them accountable
in fear of God, loves Jesus and considers His words and commandments as Truth and the source of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
I suppose that would be a start. I also realize I am dreaming, big time. While there may be some candidates who profess to be Christians….I’m not sure they would be willing or able to fulfill all these requirements. I am almost certain such a person would not be elected POTUS.
Still, a girl can dream.
I suppose my utopia will have to wait for the Lord Himself to set up His reign on earth.
I could not agree with Brother Sonny more. I’ve been working on a post just like this, but he has made the point better than I ever could.
This is just an excerpt of his article. To read it in its entirety, and learn more about his ministry, go HERE.
. I believe that the real reason America is in the midst of this moral crisis has less to do with worldly leaders in the government and more to do with Christian leaders in the pulpit.
Sure, I’m heart-sick over the number of near-sighted Christians who are expressing compromised convictions about homosexuality, but that grief does not compare to the disappointment I have in the Christian leaders who have brought us here.
Allow me to explain.
Christians Posting Rainbows
Is it just me or does anyone else see the direct connection between the doctrines of convenient Christianity and our present crisis of moral compromise? For years, some of the most outspoken leaders of evangelical Christianity have been unknowingly conditioning us for just such a time as this. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Satan has infiltrated the ranks and has used well-meaning Christians to undermine the spiritual discipline of the Christian community.
Consider a few observations about several popular doctrines:
If we are taught that everyone is born into sin (Total Depravity), why wouldn’t we conclude that homosexuals are just born that way? Since it is by God’s predestined design that they are who they are, why wouldn’t we celebrate their advancements?
If we are taught that predestination means we have no influence over our own eternal destiny (Unconditional Election), why wouldn’t we conclude that life is meant to be enjoyed rather than a journey that requires free-will discipline and self-control?
If we are taught that Jesus only died for some and the rest are predetermined to go to Hell (Limited Atonement), why wouldn’t we de-emphasize personal responsibility within the message of evangelism? Why wouldn’t we compromise and just try to coexist?
If we are taught that we have no responsibility to accept God’s gift because that would mean we are earning it (Irresistible Grace), why wouldn’t we skip over the direct commands of God that require free-will acceptance of grace? Why wouldn’t we assume that other commands of God (condemnation of homosexuality) are also open to selective obedience?
If we are taught once saved, always saved (Perseverance of the Saints), why wouldn’t we just settle in, compromise in order to coexist, and preach entitlements as the enticement doctrine
When God becomes Santa Claus, His Fatherhood is diminished and our personal responsibility is discredited. For decades, the cancerous doctrines of convenient Christianity have been undermining our culture’s resolve to be disciplined. Christianity sets the bar. Since Christian leaders have lowered that bar to the level of selective obedience, it’s no wonder so many Christian folks are now posting rainbows and celebrating sin.
Unfortunately, the present “Love Wins!” movement has been set up perfectly by those who emphasize a perverted view of grace. The doctrine of grace without human responsiI’mbility leads to a culture that believes they are entitled to acceptance without surrender to God.