I have not been particularly interested in the story of the Kentucky County Clerk who is refusing to issue a marriage license to several groups of perverts who desperately want the approval of their god, the civil government, in their "marriage," whatever that means. While listening to a Christian radio station yesterday I heard a report about the woman, Kim Davis, that portrayed her as considerably more intelligent and principled than I had assumed she would be. That got my attention so today I sat down to invest the issue more throroughly.
Kim's refusal to issue marriage licenses to perverts is not based upon her own personal belief that gays, lesbians, transgenders, queers, bisexuals and Tennesseans should not be married, although that does appear to be her own personal belief. Okay, I made up the part about Tennesseans. Her refusal to issue marriage licenses stems from what she perceives to be a First Amendment issue and the fact that the Supreme Court of Jokers's ruling that civil government has granted "most preferred" status to homosexuals effectively forces her to violate her conscience if she issues them. Calling upon the words of the late Martin Luther she believes that "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen." Too bad, for her sake, that those words were not spoken by Martin Luther King. Then they might carry some weight. Since they were spoken by the man generally considered responsible for the start of the Protestant Reformation we are free to ignore, mock and ridicule them. Never forget that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a post-Christian society. Christian arguments do not carry any weight in this immoral land.
I did an internet search and was not surprised to find that there are those who want to drag her name through the mud for what she is doing. Apparently her marital past is a bit checkered. According to this report, "The defiant Kentucky clerk who will not issue gay marriage licenses has been married four times and had twins out of wedlock, court records revealed. Kim Davis, who on Tuesday continued to refuse the licenses despite a Supreme Court ruling against her, divorced in 1994, 2006 and 2008. Davis, 49, gave birth to twins five months after she divorced her first husband. The twins' father was identified as her third husband, according to records obtained by the US News and World Report. Davis' second husband adopted the twins after they wed. She has been married twice to her current husband, Ed Davis. The leader of Liberty Counsel, which is providing Davis' legal representation, said her past does not matter because her slate was wiped clean four years ago when she converted to Christianity. 'It's something that's not relevant to the issue at hand,' Mat Staver told the U.S. News and World Report. 'She was 180 degrees changed. Davis said on Tuesday that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples would ‘violate my conscience,’ adding that to her it is ‘a Heaven or Hell decision.’ She insisted that it is not a ‘gay or lesbian issue,’ but rather a First Amendment issue concerning her religious liberty. ‘To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience,’ she stated."
So there you have it. Homosexual loving advocates believe Kim's position can be ignored because she has sinned in the past. Her appeal to God incenses them so they dig up some dirt and spread it around, hoping that merely doing so will discredit her argument. That is called the fallacy of ad hominem and it is very popular with idiots and assorted classes of stupid people. Her lawyer gets it right. Her past is irrelevant. All that matters is her argument. The important question is this, does her argument hold water?
Kim Davis is right about one thing...God hates homosexuals and the idea that the civil government would sanction their perverted practices is abominable. She is also right about another thing....she should never be forced by a ruling from the Supreme Court of Bozos to violate the principles of her own conscience. So when it comes to the two intellectual matters at hand, Kim is right. Unfortunately Kim is wrong on one very important issue and that point of wrongness derails her entire position.
Kim is a professing Christian who has made the voluntary decision to work for the civil government in a job that requires her to do things the civil government has no authority to do. Where in the Bible are we instructed that the civil government has the moral duty, right or responsibility to issue approval, via licenses, to people who choose to get married? The decision to get married is a decision that is made by the family, not the state. The state has no business interjecting itself into family decisions and issues like marriage. If two perverts want to live together and call that state "marriage," good for them. They are free to do whatever they want to do. But the state is outside the scope of its biblical authority when it makes the claim to authenticate or legitimize any marriage contract. Marriage is simply not the business of the government.
When Kim assumed her position she arrogated to herself the right to grant state permission to people to marry. When she signs her name to a marriage license she is claiming to be authorizing and authenticating, as an agent of the state, that marriage. Even if the marriage is a Christian marriage she has no biblical or moral right to do what she is doing. It is the job of the state, and the Church in cases of Christian marriage, to recognize the prior decision of the family to create a new family unit via marriage, but it is not the job of either of those two institutions to claim the ability to authorize or authenticate any marriage. I conclude that Kim Davis has taken the right position on the wrong issue. The best thing for her to do would be to resign her position immediately and get out of the business of issuing state approval for marriages. Then she would not be required to violate the principles of her conscience whatsoever.