WHAT AN AWFUL PREDICAMENT ! — reblogging a couple of posts from Rudy u Martinka

Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford, and Miles Standish, at prayer during their voyage to America. Painting by Robert Walter Weir.
Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford, and Miles Standish, at prayer during their voyage to America. Painting by Robert Walter Weir.

When we insist upon doing things we know we should not do, we may try to assuage our guilt by seducing others into our wrongdoing, making others accomplices and obligated to share our guilt. For some reason, we ignore the fact this sort of scheme cannot work.

What if we have power, the support of the government? When we can pressure people to become our accomplices, we can exponentially compound our sins. When some resolutely refuse to comply with our desires, we may even succumb to the temptation to add the persecution and torment of the innocent to our sins.

Consider that this once was a free country. When America was a free country, we did not use the law to force others to violate their consciences. Not true, you say? We have never been so free? Perhaps not. After all, we are not wise enough to solve all the conundrums that arise from a simple question? When does one person’s rights end and another’s begin?

The latest bit of confusion over the end of one person’s rights and beginning of another’s, however, is a travesty. Here we have one of many stories about it: Defiant Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Refusing to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses.

ASHLAND, Ky.—A federal judge jailed a Kentucky clerk on Thursday for contempt after she repeatedly defied his order to issue marriage licenses to gay and straight couples, imposing his authority in the most high-profile challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, had unsuccessfully appealed all the way to the high court to delay an order by the judge that she issue marriage licenses to all qualified couples, gay or heterosexual. (from here)

What should Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, have done? I don’t have a good answer. I just know we were wrong to put her in that predicament. You say you are not responsible. Well, maybe not, but our whole country will suffer. None will be unscathed.

Focus for a moment on the idiocy and the blatant dishonesty. To do her job, we are requiring Ms. Davis to affix her name on a document that certifies a lie, a “marriage” that cannot be a marriage. And we have judges condemning her for refusing, judges who lie and say the Constitution gives people of the same sex the right to marry. No society with such judges can retain a legal system that even provides an approximation of justice.

Anyway, I believe scatterwisdom has given this case some serious thought.

Please read Rudy’s posts.

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “WHAT AN AWFUL PREDICAMENT ! — reblogging a couple of posts from Rudy u Martinka

  1. Good post, Tom. It’s a bit disturbing to me that so many do not see the larger implications here. Whether she is right or wrong, she is taking a stand not just for biblical values but also for freedom and the 1rst amendment. So many also seem to not understand that government is force. When you fine somebody, dismantle their business, or throw them in jail, you are attempting to force them to comply, in this case, to comply with a desired belief. That is pretty scary because it eventually involves all sorts of odd things like thought crimes and bad think.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for the compliment, and thank you for an astute comment.

      It is almost incomprehensible how ignorant we have grown as a people. And I am not putting myself up on a pedestal. I did not start figuring out how important Jesus Christ is until I was in my fifties. Figuring out just how out-of-control our government has become was only a little easier.

      Why are these things difficult to learn? We lack the humility to easily accept the truth. Because we want to believe we can save ourselves, we don’t want to believe in Jesus. Because we want to believe we can perfect ourselves, we don’t want to believe that we must limit — because none of us can be trusted — the power we give our leaders.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. novascout

    The solution is very simple – she finds work that does not compromise her deeply held religious principles. Who would want to work someplace that required repetitive renunciation of core religious beliefs?

    Scout

    Like

    1. @ *scout:

      A couple of things occurred to me, inspired by your dismissal of the issue. The First Amendment begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” but this notion only lasted for a century and a half before beginning to erode.

      In this instance, the clerk and her predecessors had performed their duties with no difficulties for well over two centuries when there was suddenly a law that created this conflict. But this new law was not made by Congress, the legislative branch. Nor was it made by the executive branch, where well over 90% of legislation originates these days. Instead, this law was created as a reinterpretation of the Constitution by the judicial branch, who not only were never elected by the people, they cannot be removed.

      Impeachment of SCOTUS justices was tried early on and failed, demonstrating that the circumstances would have to be extraordinary indeed. Making horrifically bad judicial decisions clearly does not count as an impeachable offense. As we’ve seen from Hillary Clinton’s emails, a US Supreme Court justice needs to be guilty of a terrible sin such as conservatism in order to be deemed worthy of impeachment. (As an aside, it was interesting to see the head of the Clinton/Soros organization “Media Matters” casually admit to lying in order to accomplish his patrons’ progressive purposes. He called it “journalistic sleight of hand” but this was in the context of making a flat statement that he admits was the opposite of the truth.)

      So we have this new interpretation that did not exist before, was not the subject of a vote, and was brought forth by people who have absolutely no fear of losing their jobs as a result. And the decision of a bare majority of these robed Robespierres has extended the federal reach — not just to the jobs of local and state clerks, but to every entrepreneur engaged in businesses broadly defined as “public accommodation.”

      I have some sympathy for the couples involved. But I do not have much sympathy for the oft-stated goal of eliminating “chaos” between states. Were that goal actually a real one, we would not have people dying every single day because they were not allowed to possess self-defense tools in the state they happened to live in, because an actual Constitutionally defined right was being infringed by local and state jurisdictions.

      So the Supreme Court of the United States has decided to bring under federal control what had been a local issue. People are being hounded out of their jobs and businesses as a result, or being forced to suddenly start compromising their beliefs. To you, this is no big deal as you express here. But I understand and appreciate why actual religious people are objecting.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. novascout

        So Keith, when do you think the First Amendment began “to erode”? Was it a particular case or string of cases? My sense of it is that there has been a fairly robust First Amendment body of law that has developed even after 1937 and that, generally, religious rights and speech rights have been interpreted in ways that enlarge their scope, rather than contracting them.

        Scout

        Like

        1. @ *scout, who wrote:

          So Keith, when do you think the First Amendment began “to erode”? Was it a particular case or string of cases? My sense of it is that there has been a fairly robust First Amendment body of law that has developed even after 1937 and that, generally, religious rights and speech rights have been interpreted in ways that enlarge their scope, rather than contracting them.

          You’ve expanded this to “the First Amendment” broadly. You’ve also suggested that “religious rights” and “speech rights” have been enlarged in scope, and asked me when I thought they began to decline. To that, I can supply an answer: April, 1798.

          In that month, the proposed Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to criticize the president or Congress, were proposed and being seriously considered by both houses. (It was perfectly fine to criticize the vice president; he was a Republican. The president and Congressional majorities were Federalists.) James Madison wrote to Jefferson in May of 1798:

          The Alien bill2 proposed in the Senate is a monster that must forever disgrace its parents. I should not have supposed it possible that such an one could have been engendered in either House, & still persuade myself, that it cannot possibly be fathered by both.

          In fact, the bill passed in both houses of Congress and was signed into law that year. It essentially eliminated the right of free speech about politics, if the speech was considered to be critical of the powers that were in control.

          This was exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect. But the Constitution was “reinterpreted” to mean that sedition was not protected speech, and any speech that held Congress or President Adams up to ridicule was sedition. Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, a Republican newspaper publisher, was promptly arrested for publishing articles critical of Adams, and he died in jail. A bit over a century later, Woodrow Wilson would try the same stunt again, with Round Two of “criticize me and go to jail” laws.

          Religious freedom took longer, as it was not considered a threat. For more than a century, the Framers and other early government leaders generally promoted Christian education, paid to hire chaplains, pushed religious teachings in schools, and allowed federal buildings to be used for religious purposes. This last famously included the US House of Representatives building, which was on Sundays the largest church in the United States for several decades.

          Jefferson was involved in this; two days after the famous “Letter to the Danbury Baptists” telling these people privately that they would be protected from federal (but not state!) religious interference, President Jefferson began attending the House of Representatives church services. From the Library of Congress:

          It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House—a practice that continued until after the Civil War—were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

          Jefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.” In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a “national” religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

          Jefferson offered not a “recommendation” but an interpretation, after the fact. His goal was to assure the Connecticut Baptist church, under siege from state authorities, that the federal government would not support the state of Connecticut against them.

          At the time, the federal government was accepted as being without the power to establish or force a national religion, but had no problem supporting “generic Christianity.” But the progressives saw this very differently, and all of these practices were determined to be wrong, such that even allowing a citizen donated Christian nativity scene on public property generates outrage from the left.

          We are in the last days of the nearly quarter-millennium practice of opening the US Supreme Court with the phrase “God save this honorable Court,” just as there is a push for Jefferson himself to be expunged from positions of public honor. And there is now body of practice that prevents any exercise of religious freedom that might somehow cause offense to someone else, just as displaying an American flag is being attacked as causing offense. I would say that all of this amounts to an erosion of First Amendment rights, by reinterpreting rather than changing the US Constitution.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Most people have no idea that the Left’s myth about a wall of separation of church and state is pure fiction. What Jefferson spoke of was a wall that protected the church from the state, not a wall that protected the state from the church.

          The idea is that if the government has no power over the church — any church — then the government cannot be used to establish the supremacy of any church.

          Like

    2. At one time, not so long ago, the position of County Clerk would have required someone who is a honest, intelligent, and well-organized manager. There wasn’t any requirement to accept the Supreme Court’s standards of morality. In fact, we generally expected people to follow the dictates of their own conscience. We expected judges to comply with the letter of the law.

      Anyway, I will happily stand aside and let you argue your case with Keith. I can’t imagine what you will say, but I never would have imagined so many people would take same-sex marriage seriously. Yet as a society we have affixed our name to give license this perversion.

      Like

      1. novascout

        Oh Tom, you’re such a radical leftist. Actually Keith was meandering off into other subjects. I may get back to him later, because, as often is the case, I agree with some of what he says. But I was talking about the lady in Kentucky who thinks she can just opt out of our system of laws. It’s a particularly stark example of someone elevating herself to a position of dictatorial defiance of the Constitution and civilized, ordered liberty, because she is a public official. This is one step beyond even the idea that cake sellers can opt themselves out of the legal system. This woman holds a public trust and she acts in the name of the Government. She doesnt grant civil marriage licenses, the government does. She is paid by the government (really, to be precise, by the citizens) to exercise lawful functions. When she executes the laws of Kentucky, she isn’t acting for herself or her church or her sect (and I think it is something of a sect – it’s certainly non-Trinitarian and not mainstream, but that’s an aside, not particularly relevant). She’s acting for the lawful government. If she goes home and starts issuing marriage licenses as Kim Davis, they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on.

        So she has no use for same sex marriages. A lot of people feel the same way. Her first line of defense is not to enter into a same sex marriage. No one can force her to do it. She can maintain her principles that way. But she, like many of us, needs a job. She has one where, by law, she cannot issue civil licenses to one group and not to another. But her religious principles tell her she really can’t issue those licenses. So, being a person of integrity, she gets a job bagging groceries, or grooming dogs, or being a golf pro, or whatever. She finds something, as the rest of us certainly would do, that doesn’t leaving her feeling like she’s compromising her principles. One thing she can’t do, however, because ordered liberty would collapse if everyone did it, is simply to say “I choose the laws I obey. Law and order is for suckers. But pay me for not doing my job.” That sounds like some Haight-Ashbury hippie in the 1960s.

        Scout

        Like

        1. It is funny. You accuse Keith of meandering. Then in your response to him, you meander.

          You call yourself *scout. I suppose you would have us believe you search for the truth. Even that is a pretense.

          At best, it seems to me you want something that never was and cannot be. You want people bound by The Law, but not bound by the desire to have a good conscience. Yes, Ms. Davis occupies an elected office. Yes, she has obligations to her constituents, but would she fulfill those obligations if her conscience did not require it?

          Who establishes — what establishes — The Law? Are the members of the Supreme Court the only people who can read the Constitution? Are the members of the Supreme Court the only people who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution? Does anyone take an oath to support and defend the opinions of the Supreme Court?

          Public officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. With its unconstitutional decisions — with lies — the Supreme Court overrode the laws of Kentucky.

          Most of us can read. The Constitution is plainly written. The Federalist Papers cover most of the major issues. Is homosexuality a new or obscure concern? Don’t we all know the Supreme Court lied? Isn’t that why your defense is so pathetically weak?

          Yet there is that gloating amusement in your tone. Perhaps your deep and abiding concern for “The Law” has replaced your conscience.

          Is Ms. Davis perfect? No. Is she some sort of hypocrite? I don’t know. Is she the one I would have picked to take a stand against same-sex “marriage”? I certainly would not have picked her if I were making a movie. Nevertheless, with her refusal, she has made of the hypocrisy of the proponents of same-sex marriage self-evident. With blatant hypocrisy you demand that she follow “The Law,” but when have you shown any respect whatsoever for The Law, especially the plain intent of the Constitution? With lofty and snarky disdain, you just deride those who would disobey “The Law”.

          No one believes the people who wrote the Constitution considered “same-sex “marriage” a right. You don’t believe it. We both know the men who wrote the Constitution designed a system of laws intended to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to force crap like same-sex “marriage” upon unwilling. Yet you would use “The Law” to do exactly that.

          Should we be surprised that those who would pervert marriage will also pervert The Law? No. Instead of condemning Ms. Davis, such should questioning their own motives. Why do they prefer a lie? What price will they pay to defend their precious lie? Who won’t they sacrifice upon that alter, “The Law”?

          Like

  3. Pingback: My Article Read (9-4-2015) | My Daily Musing

  4. Matthew

    How did the government get involved with the marriage bed? The genesis was interracial marriage. Initially marriage was merely between the church and the conjoining man and woman. Some southern States began issuing marriage licenses to prohibit interracial marriages. When that practice was deemed unconstitutional, the government shifted to economics. Married couples could now (and do) receive and enjoy certain tax benefits, among other government benefits, owing to their marriage license. Tax benefits — and benefits in general — was one of the arguments used by homosexuals to permit homosexual marriages. “Hey! If a man and woman can enjoy the benefits of marriage, then why cannot my gay lover and I?!” the homosexuals whined. My point, is, once the tentacles of government reach beyond the scope of authority, as defined by its respective constitution, the government N-E-V-E-R leaves. Government grows, grows, and, well, you know. . .

    Liked by 1 person

    1. novascout

      Interesting comment. When we talk about recent court rulings affecting same sex marriage, we are only talking about civil, not religious marriages, of course. If, as Matthew says, states got into that business as a way of regulating opposite race marriages, it would seem that the need is long past. I’m sure that one could keep society together well enough with only religious marriage, and then use contract mechanisms to sort out property issues. However, I think that some of the state government presence may go back to old Europe when church and state were very much linked. Here, when I was in law school, it was often said in Family Law courses, that the State is the third party to every marriage.

      Scout

      Like

    2. Glad to hear from you Matthew, and I don’t necessarily disagree.

      The problem with government power is limiting it. To limit government power, we must restrict it to its legitimate purpose.

      Government exists to protect the rights of people. Therefore, the government’s legitimate interests in the institution of marriage stem from the following:
      1. The need to protect the rights of children. A family, formed when a man and woman marry, provides the best means to protect the rights of children. Although it is bad idea for the government to give special benefits to married people, it would be even more foolish to ignore the fact that family relationship are real and entitled to legal recognition.
      2. Sorting out family disputes. Family law is not the same as contract law. Unless the government recognizes the existence of families, policemen cannot respond appropriately to family disputes, and judges cannot make appropriate decisions with respect to family disputes. Consider that children don’t choose to enter a family. When two young people marry, often they do not appreciate the obligation they have assumed. They may not not understand that that relationship will last a lifetime (even after a divorce). Yet family relationships tend to be the strongest that we have. Thus, when a family relationship turns sour, the emotional levels involved tend to be quite high, and the conflicts that arise within a family sometimes become very bitter. For the sake of the children or an injured spouse, such conflicts will most likely require the intervention of the state.

      Like

      1. Matthew

        I respectfully disagree. I find no purpose for the government to be involved in marriage. Marriage, as it ought to be, is between the church and the conjoining man and woman.

        I would like to clarify my above comment. I stand corrected. Historically speaking, some States prohibited interracial marriage, while other States permitted interracial marriage via marriage license.

        Like

        1. @ Matthew, who wrote:

          I stand corrected. Historically speaking, some States prohibited interracial marriage, while other States permitted interracial marriage via marriage license.

          Only a bit over forty of them prohibited it. ];-)

          However, the timing of the ending of these prohibitions varied. The states left whose laws were overturned by the 1967 ruling were essentially the Democrat-heritage Southern states. The rest had ended their prohibition previously, most in the previous twenty years but a few before the end of the 19th century.

          Here’s a map:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_miscegenation.svg

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Matthew

          Okay. Here are some problems.
          1. You find a five-year old child wandering on the street. You call a policemen. How does the policeman decide who is the child’s legal guardian. Is it finders keepers? Do you now have a five-year old you are responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering?
          2. A man and a woman have been living together for five years. Because one of them has been sexually active with a third party, their “partner” decides to leave on the grounds of adultery (whatever that might be). So there is now property to split. These once happy “partners” are also fighting over the custody of two children. Unfortunately, these onetime lovers can no longer engage in a civil conversation with each other.
          3. Someone dies. That someone has substantial property, but they did not leave a valid will. Who gets the property?

          How do you resolve the disputes?

          Like

        3. Matthew

          @Tom

          How would George and Martha Washington resolve the above disputes, since they were married without a government license?

          Like

        4. @Matthew

          How would George and Martha Washington resolve the above disputes, since they were married without a government license?

          When someone answers a reasonable question with a question, what does that suggest? Perhaps we need to clarify the nature of our bone of contention. What same-sex “marriage” advocates want is public affirmation of their sexual lunacy. If government stopped issuing marriage licenses, that would not end the dispute. Whether government issues a license or not, government still has to have operational definition of marriage.

          Next time you pay taxes consider that option, “married, filing jointly.” And that is just a small part of the problem.

          BTW – When George and Martha Washington were married, we still had a limited government. Nevertheless, even in George’s and Martha’s time people had rights that need to be protected, including children and abused spouses.

          Like

  5. novascout

    @ Tom (your 0947 comment): Thanks, again for taking the high road and not making it personal.

    Actually, although I don’t think it matters, I call myself “Scout”. Keith calls me “*scout” for some reason, perhaps a sticky shift key on his keyboard. I don’t think it much matters, do you? And no, I don’t believe I “search for truth”. I’m always happy to find it, but it’s not a particular quest of mine. The “Scout” moniker goes back to one of my earlier jobs some time ago. It’s a young man’s work and I don’t do it any more.

    I’m actually very respectful of the law, and I’m not sure where you got the idea that I go around defying it. I have three traffic violations after 50+ years of driving, but none were based on defiance. I simply was not paying attention to the posted limit. Other than that, I am a poster child for respect for the law. I even make my living practicing it.

    I do have a negative view of people who disregard the law, because I think it a very anarchical tendency that threatens ordered liberty. You’ll find that my view on that is quite common in conservative circles. There are a lot of leftists who have no real regard for the law and think they can just make their own individual decisions about which laws they obey and which they ignore and then act startled when there are consequences for those decisions. I see you fall into that camp.

    I’m very much for Ms Davis and anyone else following their consciences. In her case, she should certainly do so by resigning from a public position whose responsibilities she cannot, in good conscience, fulfill. That solves the problem, doesn’t it?

    Scout

    Like

    1. I use *scout for two reasons. First, the asterisk denotes a wildcard search for names (as in filenames) — since you cannot seem to decide on whether to call yourself “scout” or “novascout” and even in the comment you just made you identified yourself as one but logged in as the other. The wildcard would match either form your fancy has chosen to use at the moment. Second, the Vonnegut reference amused me.

      Your attitude about the law as expressed here has an interesting implication: You were a wholehearted supporter of Jim Crow notions, I suppose, when those laws were the law of the land. I don’t suppose you had any qualms then about full-throated support for laws that are in conflict with the US Constitution such as the ones in force then in your state. They were evidently within your lifetime, and certainly within mine — but more to the point, at one point they were both (a) the law of the land, (b) wrong, and most importantly (c) unconstitutional. Nearly every state, for example, had anti-miscegenation laws, not just “Southern states.” It was something like 7/8ths of US states.

      Elsewhere, you note the common aphorism in family law: “The State is the third party to every marriage.” Were you consistent, you would have amended this to say “… every civil marriage” since you’ve asserted many times that government has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriages. In fact, you’ve made that same assertion on this post.

      But your own exposure to family law gives the lie to that. The distinction between civil law and religious sacrament when it comes to marriage is almost non-existent; the State will barge into a marriage that had no government license and make its own determinations as to rights, probate, property in splits and so on, simply because two people have lived together long enough that the government will consider them married by default.

      And family law is a gigantic area of practice; changes here create a field day for the thousands of attorneys involved in this legal practice.

      As nearly as I can tell, no one agrees with you. No Constitutional conservative, but even your fellow progressives do not: Civil unions that created exactly the same benefits as marriage were not enough, but would have been if your notion of the distinction was accepted.

      It may surprise you to learn that I am not, in fact, against homosexual marriage per se. I am against:
      • Homosexuals mounting campaigns to teach this as a desirable lifestyle at least as early as elementary school, against parents’ wishes, and with government’s full support.
      • Unelected and unaccountable courts making this decision for states, and now for all of them at once, rather than the people deciding in their own states.
      • The federal government deciding that this was a matter they would legislate upon, despite the utter lack of Constitutional authority to do so.
      • The forcing of people to bend the knee to government authorities, against their religious faith, when those people are simply doing what they were doing previously.
      • The notion that progressives have that people cannot simply tolerate progressive meddling in society, that meddling must be forced onto them and they must be forced to perform positive acts in approval of it, or be punished.
      • The blatant promotion of homosexual values in entertainment media, in news media, and in government education, in a long-running propaganda campaign.
      • The direction that all of this takes society, setting up a SCOTUS involvement in the next battles, for polygamy, incest, and human-animal marriages, all of which are being pushed by progressives now that this door has been opened.

      This issue would have gone differently had gays simply worked through things on a state-focused voting basis. Many would have been unhappy, but they would have simply accepted things as long as they were not forced to actively support it, and did not have their noses rubbed in practices they find abhorrent. Religious and other objectors would have grumbled but moved on. But the people and their states have been emasculated and disenfranchised once again.

      It is progressives, not conservatives, who seek to destroy those with practices they don’t care for. This progressives call “tolerance,” and it has been that way since Marx first considered how to destroy society. The clear connection of the homosexual marriage issue with the campaign to destroy American society annoys me.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Other than the fact I am against same-sex “marriage,” we agree. If you think more about it, I think you will eventually agree same-sex “marriage” is wrong. Consider your objections.

        • Homosexuals mounting campaigns to teach this as a desirable lifestyle at least as early as elementary school, against parents’ wishes, and with government’s full support.
        • Unelected and unaccountable courts making this decision for states, and now for all of them at once, rather than the people deciding in their own states.
        • The federal government deciding that this was a matter they would legislate upon, despite the utter lack of Constitutional authority to do so.
        • The forcing of people to bend the knee to government authorities, against their religious faith, when those people are simply doing what they were doing previously.
        • The notion that progressives have that people cannot simply tolerate progressive meddling in society, that meddling must be forced onto them and they must be forced to perform positive acts in approval of it, or be punished.
        • The blatant promotion of homosexual values in entertainment media, in news media, and in government education, in a long-running propaganda campaign.
        • The direction that all of this takes society, setting up a SCOTUS involvement in the next battles, for polygamy, incest, and human-animal marriages, all of which are being pushed by progressives now that this door has been opened.

        Because society has an obligation to protect the rights of children and to discourage spousal abuse, marriage is a legal institution. Therefore, healthy societies do their best to accord healthy marriages at least a modicum of respect. It is that respect that homosexuals envy, and envious people behave poorly. Hence they make unreasonable and even absurd demands.

        Homosexuality is an aberration. Is it a behavioral or genetic aberration? I don’t think it makes any difference. The significance of homosexuality lies in the behavior of those afflicted with it. It is not healthy.

        We are not animals only to the extent we choose to control ourselves. Even if it were not a sin, society has no interest in promoting or lending its imprimatur to the behavior associated with homosexuality. All it does is make a joke of heterosexual marriage. It also creates confusion. The government’s primary interest in marriage is protecting the rights of children, not doling out “marriage” benefits.

        Like

      2. novascout

        Yes, Keith, I was speaking of civil marriages when I mentioned that the black letter law that we were taught. I thought that was clear from context, but it doesn’t hurt to have you ram it home for the slow-witted among the crowd.

        I’m not sure why you think I was a big Jim Crow backer. You have proven yourself capable of rational, logical thought, so I don’t have the slightest idea where you’re coming from on that. I was a bit young when that madness was in full flower, and lived in a northern state where racial discrimination no doubt existed, but in more subtle and non-legislative forms. But I always thought Jim Crow to be palpable evil. In my first trip to the South as a nine year old, I was stunned when I saw “white” and “colored” drinking fountains. A relative had to explain it to me. Even at that early age, I think that there is a natural moral aversion to that kind of thing that is inherent in most people. I certainly hope that, had I been and adult in a position of governmental responsibility in Jim Crow times, I would have had the moral strength to resign rather than enforce them. Later in life, when I became old enough to be aware of and to begin to understand the majesty and genius of the Constitution (the process began to take strong hold in my teens, in the mid 1960s), I had no doubt that all that residual Jim Crow claptrap would fall before the force of the Constitution, particularly the post-Civil War amendments.

        Another good example that you didn’t mention, but might have, was the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. Again, we probably both would like to think we would have had the moral courage to resign from any office that required us to enforce those laws. And, of course, that’s what we’re talking about with this county clerk in Kentucky.

        I actually think there is a great deal of agreement in conservative circles with my position. I know that I am not, as you posit, the only one in America who feels that her proper course was to resign, rather than to refuse to execute the laws while accepting public funds to do exactly that. Having followed this in a number of “conservative” venues over the past week, I actually have been pleased to see that the opinion seems to be running very strongly in the same direction my thoughts take me on the issue.

        Scout

        PS: I thought I had explained before, but since it is a trivial thing, you might not remember and I wouldn’t blame you for not registering it. Years ago, I used the handle “NoVa Scout” in the blog world. Over time, I just decided to shorten it to “Scout”. That got sorted out easily enough at most sites, but for some reason with Tom’s there is an artifact in his site that detects my IP address and automatically populates it with “novascout.” It’s not something I actively do. And, as I have acknowledged here many times (and, if you don’t believe me, ask my children), I am such a complete ignoramus about the architecture of computers and all that attends them, that I have no idea how to fix it. I find it puzzling that you and Tom think this worthy of remark, but, to the extent it interests you, I’m pleased to brighten your day.

        Like

  6. novascout

    Tom says that when George Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis, “we still had limited government”.

    I’m intrigued by Tom’s notion that life under the heel of the British King was a period of “limited government.” Phrases like that mean different things to different people, but when used on this site, Tom, can we assume that you are harking back to the golden age of being colonial subjects of a distant hereditary monarch? With no elected voice in Parliament to boot?

    Can’t accuse you of failing to exhibit original thinking. One doesn’t hear that sort of idea very much these days in these parts.

    Scout

    Like

    1. If we want to get sufficiently literal, neither of us were alive in 1758, when George and Martha married each other. So I suppose it is incorrect to identify with people who lived before we were born?

      Do you really think America suddenly became a free nation with the ratification of the Constitution? If the colonies had not already been populated by free peoples, the Constitution would not have been an option. The individual governments of the thirteen colonies served as the precursors of the United States. Some the freedoms we enjoy today were not commonplace then. However, they were moving in that direction. George Mason got the Virginia Declaration of Rights passed in 1776.

      So I think it safe to say the American colonists fought King George III’s army to keep their freedom, not gain it.

      Like

  7. novascout

    Here I thought it was 1759. Shows how much I know. Thank you for the correction.

    I think America became a free nation gradually, not suddenly. It started in the French and Indian War, when we found that Britain’s protection was meaningless without our local knowledge and skills. It expanded as we resisted being mere cogs in the mercantilist machine that was the nascent European Imperia of the 18th Century. The Declaration was a free people heading for the exit. The Constitution was sheer genius unlike anything that had ever been seen on earth previously.

    I can’t really make hide nor hair out of the rest of your comment, Tom. I do think, however, that you’re locked in as saying that we had “limited government” in either 1758 or 1759. I think we were pieces of dirt in the Hanoverian dynasty’s boots. To each his own.

    Scout

    Like

  8. novascout

    Imagine that. Had they been married a year earlier, I doubt that we would have found the King’s thumb any less weighty on the scales of enterprise.

    Scout

    Like

    1. scout, you are being an idiot. You are just sniping. Apparently, you are mad because Keith deflated so many of your arguments, and you are too afraid of him to try this silly nonsense with him. Why don’t you just take a break, sit in a hot tub, and relax with a good book?

      Like

  9. novascout

    I didn’t realize Keith deflated my arguments, so I could hardly be upset. I said I think Ms Davis should resign. I don’t think he has deflated that. I’m not even sure he disagrees. I do detect that he doesn’t like the Obergefell decision. I myself see some weaknesses in it, but it doesn’t affect my view that Ms Davis has an easy solution to a non-problem as it affects her conscience issues.

    I am, by the way, reading a couple of good books. I highly recommend Professor Alan Guelzo’s (sp?) book on Gettysburg. I have read virtually everything ever written in English on that battle and I would have thought it impossible to attack the subject with any freshness. I am also reading an Icelandic detective novel called “Jar City”. I read very little modern fiction, but a colleague at work recommended it, and I have a lot of business contacts with Scandinavia (not sure Iceland really qualifies under that rubric), However, my partner said that the detective in the book reminded him of me, so I think I’m going to have to slog through it to find out whether that was a compliment or an insult. Perhaps I can’t be objective about that.

    Scout

    Like

Comments are closed.