US court jails defiant KY woman over gay marriage

The mask is off the monster. Today, a Federal court jailed a defiant Christian county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. The Federal judge ordered Rowan County clerk Kim Davis arrested and jailed rather than simply fined because he noted that her Christian supporters could raise the money for her. In his anti-Christian dictate Federal Judge David Bunning said, “The idea of natural law superceding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”

Yes, Judge Bunning, Davis’ defiant stand and willingness to be prosecuted is dangerous to anti-Christian rulers and governments.

May God bless Kim Davis. And may He free us from this awful, Godless regime which rules over us.

10 Comments

·

Leave a Reply

  1. People on the so called Right have complained about Federal courts for decades all the while insisting that the states and individuals must follow their rulings for the sake of the law. One cannot complain about the legitimacy of a Federal ruling while at the same time insist that everyone “honor” and “respect” their rulings as legitimate law. If a judicial ruling is illegitimate (e.g. decided by a biased/corrupt judge) no one has any moral obligation to follow it. If anyone insist that a judicial ruling must be followed, then they implicitly agree that the ruling is legitimate. No one can say “The Federal courts are out of control but you must do as they say.” This cuckservative mindset has incentivized the Federal abuse they complain about and yet they wonder why there has been so much and so blatant of an abuse of power. Rod Dreher has complained endlessly about the gay ‘marriage’ ruling but yesterday he insisted that Obergefell is the law of the land and that the clerk must comply with the law. Well Rod, you have just legitimized the ruling so you no longer have any right to complain about it.

    Cuckservatives have complained for decades about Federal courts. They have stated this ad nauseam on their radio shows, on TV, in their articles, op-eds, speeches, prayers, meetings, campaign rallies, etc, etc, etc, etc. but they have done nothing correct this situation. Even though she will lose, in this one act of defiance and nullification by this woman she has done a million times more to push back against Federal supremacy than all of the cuckservative pundits, radio hosts, writers combined.

    So, from the bottom of my heart and from the deepest depths of my soul, thank you Ms Davis. And God bless you.

    Like

  2. “The idea of natural law superceding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”

    Natural law is exactly the excuse the North used to justify overturning the Constitution and laws in order to wage war against the South from 1856 to 1876. And to deny Southrons their legal protections and rights under the Constitution, disenfranchise them and deny their Humanity to this day.

    Rest assured, if Ms. Davis were from north of the Ohio and engaged in some action of which the Northern people approved, this would not be a legal case, much less news. In fact, public officials in the North and on the Left Coast ignore the law all the time in persuit of social engineering schemes. Sanctuary cities, for instance. Or the legalisation of marijuana, which is defiance of Federal authority writ large. Which shows that the Federal Government exists to serve the will of the Northern people and their political allies on the Pacific coast. Not us, or our friends in the interior West, eithet

    Like

  3. Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree:

    See this please:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/01/scotus-to-ky-clerk-issue-marriage-licenses-clerk-no/

    We’ve written plenty of posts defending religious freedom and the right to choose not to participate in private ceremonies, but this case is different. The other cases about which we have written involve private enterprise — bakers, photographers, venue owners — who do not exercise a monopoly on their markets. Operating a private business should not strip people of the right to free religious expression in all phases of their lives; other businesses can and do wish to participate in those events, and the free market should be free for all within it.

    Government is not a free market, however; it is a monopoly backed up by force. If the law says these couples can apply for and receive a marriage license, then government has to abide by that law. They exercise a monopoly on marriage licenses; these couples cannot go anywhere else to get one. This is a denial of access to market by government force, essentially, a much different situation than with bakers, photographers, and so on.

    One might sympathize with Davis on her religious objections to same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t give her the authority to deny it if it is lawful. A politician might object to alcohol purchases, perhaps even on religious grounds, but he can’t deny permits to liquor stores in a jurisdiction that allows them just because of his religious objections to alcohol consumption. That would be an abuse of power, the kind conservatives would protest in other circumstances.

    Accepting office in government means upholding the law. If that conflicts with Davis’ religious beliefs, then she should resign and find other work. Ignoring the law and denying services on the basis of an official’s own desires is a form of petty tyranny. We may not like the law, but those in office cannot be allowed to decide for themselves which they follow on the basis of personal preference.

    Basically, this woman is making a Religious argument against a secular law. She was elected to do a job and she is not doing it. She should resign. Instead she put herself in contempt of court. We are not a theocracy, but a Constitutional Republic. If she, or her supporters are against the law, then work to change it, not do this foolishness.

    Just my 2 cents.

    -Pat

    Like

    • Patrick, I would argue that “we” (meaning them – the people in DC who rule over us) are a tyranny. And this law, being unjust and immoral is not lawful at all according to our faith, our traditional values and nature itself. It is an abomination -precisely like the city from whence it came (DC) and all good people should resist it.

      Like

    • There is no law that says these couples can apply for and receive a marriage license. If there is, tell me where it is written?

      Like

      • True. Just as there was no law permitting abortion or miscegenation. These things were just legislated by the US courts – forced upon millions of Southerners without us having any say in the matter even though our culture strongly opposed them. It points to the tyrannical nature of the US government.

        Like

    • By the way Pat, she and her supporters did work to make a law that reflected the values of her people. It’s called the Kentucky state Constitution. Their law was thrown out by Federal judges. What recourse is there when Federal judges revoke the lawmaking ability of a people.

      Just a kind and sincere word of advice to you. Stop worshiping at the throne of Federal judges. These people are not gods. They are humans who are subject to the same law as all of us. For a Constitutional Republic to have any meaning, its judicial branch would have to consist of impartial judges. We know this isn’t the case. Five SCOTUS “justices” threw out a state law based on their own ideological bent. Your Constitutional Republic isn’t worth a plug nickle.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s