The Kentucky County Clerk that is refusing to follow the law of the land, Democrat Kim Davis, should not be placed upon a pedestal for her “defense” of Christianity. In fact, she should be admonished for not following the laws of the secular nation in which she makes a living.
But Texas’ junior senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz begs us to “stand with Kim Davis”.
Cruz: I Call Upon Every Believer, Every Constitutionalist, Every Lover of Liberty to Stand with Kim Davis
Statement on Arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis
HOUSTON, Texas – U.S. Sen. Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding the arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis:
“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.
“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.
“In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.
“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?
“Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?
“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.
“Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.
“Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.
“I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.”
Sen. Cruz, as we all know, because he never stops telling us, is a “brilliant” legal scholar and expert on the constitution. More to the point, he is a political panderer that doesn’t want anyone in the current race for President to get to his right on any issue.
Let’s get one thing straight – Kim Davis was not jailed for her Christian faith. She was jailed for refusing to follow a lawful order in her capacity as an elected official. As the judge who ordered her jailed noted, she took an oath to follow the Constitution and she must adhere to that oath.
Of course, if she really, truly wanted to follow her faith, all she has to do is resign her cushy government job.
But that would be asking too much, now wouldn’t it? Christians should never have to sacrifice for their faith.
Oh sure, Cruz the panderer will get a few points from those that refuse to think about this issue. And he will continue his quest to be the Republican nominee in better shape because of it.
But he isn’t right and doesn’t have a constitutional leg to stand on.
Stand with Kim Davis?
No thank you. I’ll stand with the law of the land. After all:
13 It is important that all of us submit to the authorities who have charge over us because God establishes all authority in heaven and on the earth. 2 Therefore, a person who rebels against authority rebels against the order He established, and people like that can expect to face certain judgment. 3 You see, if you do the right thing, you have nothing to be worried about from the rulers; but if you do what you know is wrong, the rulers will make sure you pay a price. Would you not rather live with a clear conscience than always have to be looking over your shoulder? Then keep doing what you know to be good and right, and they will publicly honor you.
4 Look at it this way: The ruler is a servant of God called to serve and benefit you. But he is also a servant of God executing wrath upon those who practice evil. If you do what is wrong, then you’d better be afraid because he wields the power of the sword and doesn’t make empty threats.
At the time, Christians are a tiny minority within Judaism, a minor religion in the largest empire the world has ever seen. Minorities are often the subjects of rumors, suspicions, and innuendos. Christians don’t need to add to the problem by developing a reputation as lawbreakers and rebels. So Kingdom citizens are not to dodge taxes or cheat on fees imposed by legitimate governing authorities. They are to show the proper respect for officials in power. Ultimately those who follow the truth of the gospel under the banner of the Anointed One may find themselves at odds with the powers that be. But Paul’s counsel here is not a blanket approval of any and every government that may arise in a broken world.
5 So submission is not optional; it’s required. But don’t just submit for the sake of avoiding punishment; submit and abide by the laws because your conscience leads you to do the right thing. 6 Pay your taxes for the same reason because the authorities are servants of God, giving their full attention to take care of these things. 7 Pay all of them what you owe. If you owe taxes, then pay. If you owe fees, then pay. In the same way, give honor and respect to those who deserve it.
I’ll have a lot more respect for Kim Davis’ “Christian beliefs” when she gives up her government job to uphold them. Until then, she’s no better than Ted Cruz, pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to get attention.
Sorry, but she has an obligation to have at least one employee available to issue the licenses. That she willfully refused to do so is legitimate grounds for this contempt finding. After all, if some fundy clerk refused to file paperwork for any Catholic marriage out because of her beliefs and would arrange for no one else to do the job, we would recognize the problem and demand action to deal with the problem.
Dear Ted, Harvard Law School called. They want their diploma back.
Sorry, but we have an obligation to uphold God’s word and obey God rather than men. perverted laws and court decisions and opinions must always take second place the the objective standard of the bible and its law.
Not when the taxpayers are paying your salary, you don’t. She should resign her position and wage her crusade full time, subsisting on the kindness of conservative rube strangers.,
Or got to jail, directly to jail, not passing go and not collecting $200.
What would we be saying if Catholic clerk refused to take divorce petitions or to file signed divorce judgments? How about a Baptist clerk who refused to issue or accept license applications for liquor licenses?
The First Amendment freedom or religion free exercise does not give a blank check to ignore the law based on religious beliefs. If it did, the fundamentalist Mormons who had polygamy and married off minor girls would still be in West Texas rather than prison.
What if my sincerely held religious belief required me to sacrifice a virgin to Woden every full moon? Does the First Amendment protect that exercise of religion?
The people siding with Kim Davis are doing so because her religious beliefs mirror theirs. But their religion isn’t the only one protected by the Constitution.
She has two choices now. Stay in jail until she argees to follow a court order or resign her office.
By the way, I find it interesting that she was her mother’s deputy clerk when her mother had the job and now she has a son who is her deputy. Hasn’t Kentucky ever heard of nepotism?
I can appreciate your alternative suppositions but a male and female Catholic marriage ending in divorce isn’t necessarily a sin. 1 Cor 7 gives a directive on divorce.
A Baptist clerk refusing alcohol permits isn’t scripturally based, as well. It merely reflects a lack of understanding of scripture. The Word is filled with guidelines on how and when to drink alcohol. It clearly does not address the subject with a a firm, “no,:
Either way, neither of your examples holds to the level of same sex marriage. I am not here to argue for or against SSM but to address the topic of Kim Davis.
It seems to me that the Judge in this case has a record of being an activist judge on social issues and he wanted to send a message. Ok, message sent. He should not have jailed her.
No one on either side of the issue offered a real solution for those employees to live and work with their private personal belief systems unassaulted. The SCOTUS in their own rulings stated that passage of the law would affect one demographic group over the other.
Kim Davis, whether you agree with her or not, has the right to work in an environment that does not force her to violate her own religious beliefs. There could have been concessions made on both sides before she was jailed.
I stand with Ted Cruz and with Kim Davis.
The Catholic Church doesn’t forbid divorce. It forbids remarriage after a civil divorce.
The problem with this analysis, txpatriot, is that you don’t get to decide what the Bible really teaches to the Baptist who holds a sincere religious belief that it would be a sin to issue an alcohol license, or the Catholic who sincerely believes that issuing licenses to the divorced would be wrong. The courts try to avoid deciding when a religious opinion is sincerely held, to avoid infringing on religion. So if that Baptist claims to really believe it, or if the Muslim clerk really believes that women should not drive cars and refuses to issue drivers licenses to women, how do we respect their religious beliefs?
Your comment that the judge is an activist is way off base. He is a Republican appointee, a conservative Roman Catholic.
Their religious beliefs ought to be irrelevant to performing the job they were hired or elected to do. If your beliefs prevent you from serving the secular purpose of your job, your choices are to quit or perform the job. That’s it.
I really think that Ted Cruz’s point is the hypocrisy of our Department of Justice choosing to prosecute this particular case yet ignore what is happening in sanctuary cities who protect illegal aliens that are killing and harming citizens and a president that will not follow the law regarding illegal immigration, welfare and Obamacare.
Ted said that it is a matter of priorities. Why not prosecute those officials who are not enforcing laws that result in much more harm to citizens than inconveniencing some same-sex partner who now have to go to a neighboring county to get married.
I stand with Ted Cruz and I stand with Kim Davis……..
Then you’re standing with a powerless junior senator and a jailed Democratic bigot. Nice choice there.
Ted Cruz is proof that having a Harvard degree is not evidence of having a brain and an ability to think.
The DoJ wasn’t prosecuting Ms. Davis. The people who wanted a marriage license filed suit to force her to do her job. The court ruled she has to do her job. After appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, she refused to perform her job as ordered, and a judge put her in jail for contempt of court for failing to follow a court ruling.
This has nothing to do with sanctuary cities or any other BS you want to bring up. It’s a civil matter.
I stand corrected on the DOJ involvement. Anything fishy about how this case seemed to work it’s way up to the Supreme Court soo quickly when nothing seems to be happening with the other more important issues?
Sometimes the courts act quickly, especially when they are allowing a lower court ruling to stand. There was some urgency on this issue, since Davis was refusing to perform a ministerial duty that she is required to perform by law, and it had an impact on a number of folks.
Yeah, like Anna Russell by order of queen parker, refusing to count the signatures submitted by Dave Wilson. How convenient to like the law when it rules on one favor.
The DOJ is not prosecuting this case. The judge issued a civil order after a lawsuit was filed by a gay couple who sought a marriage license. The court issued a site of mandamus compelling Ms. Davis to follow the law and issue licenses. When she refused to comply with the judge’s lawful order she was found in contempt of the court and for that she was jailed. This order of contempt is unlikely to reversed on appeal in spite of what her lawyers are telling her. So in short she is not being “prosecuted” at all. She simply failed to comply with a court order.
From constitutional attorney Herb Titus –
“As an elected official faced with an obviously illegitimate Supreme Court opinion, in a better time, a President could have explained to the American people why the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and protected her. Failing that, Clerk Davis should have been able to call on her state’s Governor to protect her — to interpose between her and the five Justices. However, Democrat Governor Steven Lynn Beshear is demanding she make a choice – either resign, or comply with his lawless instructions to implement the Supreme Court decision sanctifying same sex marriage. The Governor apparently believes in the unconstitutional Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy — that by a stroke of the pen, five elite lawyers wearing black robes can rewrite the Constitution, and that no one may question their decisions. Even worse, the Governor apparently cares nothing about the created order. He has no problem with a Court that had the audacity to try to change the Creator’s definition of marriage for all America — by pretending to find the issue hidden in the penumbras and emanations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/refusal-to-issue-a-same-sex-marriage-license-is-a-civic-duty/
My two cents, whether one chooses to agree with her or not, one has to admit that she is sitting in jail for what she says are her religious beliefs.
The argument that we are a nation of law is good argument, but if it always applies, then there should not have been Nazi war criminals they were only following the law of the land.
Martin Luther King was defying the law of the land in those place where he chose to protest.
Mahatma Gandhi was clearly not following the law of the land.
Those that criticize her, one question how many of you are willing to go to jail for your beliefs? How many have done so?
I’m sorry David, but I’ll have to disagree with you on two points:
First, the passage in Romans should never be construed to require compliance with an immoral, un-biblical government order. Using that logic you should be okay with Planned Parenthood continuing to use your money to abort babies. After all the Supreme Court said it was okay. . . . The examples that St. Paul gives in the passage are not moral issues, just unpleasant ones.
We have traditionally recognized that there were times when a person’s faith conflicted with civil requirements (ex: our provision for conscientious objectors in times of draft), that is a primary point of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
Second, whether you agree with Ms. Davis stance, or not she is exemplifying the idea of living out her faith. She took her stand and was/is willing to suffer the consequences. I hope that in similar circumstances I would do as well.
I might also note that given your position, we should have never prosecuted Nazis at Nuremberg, Martin Luther King was way out of line for protesting Jim Crow laws, and the American Revolution should have never happened.
This is a sticky subject. As a very devout Christian, I know that the only reason evil exist is because our loving creator allows men to have freedom of the will. He has stated clearly that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. It is also very obvious based upon just looking at our physical makeup that women weren’t made for women, nor men for men. I guess the million dollar question is where do we draw the lines for morality. Homosexual marriage or desires are evil, just as evil as having sex before marriage. Thank God by his grace that although I had sex before marriage, his loving kindness, patience and mercy caused me to repent of such actions. If I were given the option to vote, I would certainly vote against such acts, but I will not treat those who do such acts any differently then I would expect to be treated. The fact that we are having this discussion only shows how depraved our minds are
This has me very confused. Fat Albert claims:
“First, the passage in Romans should never be construed to require compliance with an immoral, un-biblical government order.”
But surely the authority Paul was referring to in his letter to the Christian church in Rome was the “immoral, un-biblical government order” of the first century Roman Empire.
Herb Titus has some curios things to say as well:
“resign, or comply with his lawless instructions to implement the Supreme Court decision sanctifying same sex marriage.”
Sanctifying? The Mullahs that rule Iran and the Kings that rule Saudi Arabia may be able to sanctify their laws as they claim power directly from G@D. Does the Governor of Kentucky make such a claim? Do our federal courts make such a claim?
“He has no problem with a Court that had the audacity to try to change the Creator’s definition of marriage for all America”
But America has changed the definition of marriage many times either by vote or court opinion. Polygamy has been banned in this nation though the bible is filled with such unions. Inter-racial marriage was banned in many states before being overturned by the courts as the bible allows such unions. Every state has age restrictions for marriage though the bible makes none explicitly and has examples of child brides. All states require individual consent for a marriage license to be valid though the bible provides examples of unions arranged by the parents/guardians.
When I married it was in a church. The service was performed by my pastor and our vows were made to each other before G@D and our Christian community. Before our pastor was allowed to marry us the State required a license. As far as I am concerned the license provides access to the state family law system and nothing more. The state cannot marry anyone who believes marriage is a sacrament. Only the churches have this power.
A show of hands please. How many of you had your marriage sanctified by the state. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?