Thursday, September 3, 2015

Get Gay Or Go To Jail

Kim Davis has been jailed for refusing to give out gay marriage licenses in Kentucky. You can read all about it here.


That didn't take long, did it.



LL said...

We live in a lawless nation. The lady in Kentucky should follow the law even if she doesn't like it -- or quit.

Homosexuals and various other self-described sodomites may cheer on the streets of Austin, but we need to get back to obeying the law - all laws. The Obama years have eroded the practice of being law abiding. The Obama mode (such as sanctuary cities) result in giving one's self license to obey only the laws they decide to obey.

So on this matter we may disagree. She needs to go to jail or quit her job.

LSP said...

I agree with the principle -- lawlessness is bad. But is Davis, ironically perhaps, being more law abiding than at first she appears? Here's AS Haley (Anglican Curmudgeon):

"What is wrong with this picture? The clerk is enforcing Kentucky law as written by its people represented through its legislature, not as five unelected jurists in black robes say by fiat that Kentucky law must be.

"The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges this past June is a crudely written joke. It is a spoof of the law, a caricature of the law, because it does not even pretend to connect itself with, or to respect the traditional boundaries of, the jurisprudence of our federal system. Federal courts have no business "defining" (or "redefining" -- the very word assumes a power they do not possess under the Constitution) State law in local family matters."

Or, to put it another way, some laws aren't laws at all. Is this the case with the Supreme Court's recent gay ruling? If so, disobeying it becomes a duty for the lawful citizen, in the same way that a law making it illegal to vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton should be disobeyed.

Hillary might disagree with that, but I wouldn't shirk my civic duty.

LL said...

If the Founding Fathers had any imagination that American society would have stooped to a celebration of sodomy, to the wanton murder and sale of organs of babies or to a long list of "progressive" concepts, I'm positive that they would have re-worded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Truth be told, modern "normal practices" were things you would have been hung (or shot) for in 1782.

Civil disobedience is everyone's right. You also face the law. Cassius Clay (later Mohammed Ali) went to jail for refusing to sign up for the draft. Like him/don't like him, he did his time. Whether Ms. Davis (who believes in marriage, being on her fourth) is doing what others have done. I don't dislike her. But she's doing the same thing that Obama has done, only on a small scale. She wishes to set aside the law herself.

Maybe her martyrdom will amount to some big outcry and movement to overturn Obergefell v Hodges? Who knows? I doubt it. When the President is a closeted queer and Hillary is a less closeted womanizer, and the public loves Bruce Jenner's big move, I think that we're just that far gone.

AS said...

I do not agree with the gay lifestyle, and I am sure they do not agree with my gun loving lifestyle either. However, States and governments should NOT be in the business of marriage. Gay marriage and gay rights would not even be an issue if the States simply stayed out of it entirely.

Socialism is the cause for all of this. There is no reason that social welfare should be distributed simply because a person is married. Married persons get tax breaks, discounts, and other forms of social welfare that are not afforded to the unmarried (regardless of how many times they may have unsuccessfully been previously married.) Married people are no more stable than unmarried peoples, yet we allow that socialistic favors are acceptable only for the married, and sanction such foolishness via governments.

I am married, yet I do not have a state issued license. I have previously been married by a JP, boat captain, and Clergy (yes, I admit that I have failed at marriage myself, so why should I get special treatment?) There is no reason why a gay couple cannot also "be married" by witnesses of their choosing. But alas, they want the socialistic perks (incorrectly assumed to be "Rights") of marriage as offered by the State and corporations. Hence the fight.

When government gets out of the marriage business, then people's hands will not be forced due to religious objections to government absurdity.

Maybe if governments simply went to bed for a few decades, we could straighten all this out ourselves. Or maybe I will just move to Liberland.

XS3mdrvr said...

1. Jacob 3:1.

2. " The wrong shall fail, the right prevail.
with peace on earth goodwill towards men."

Infidel de Manahatta said...

Gay is the new black. Transsexual is the new gay. Post op is the new pre op. Please adjust your cultural bookmarks accordingly.

LSP said...

Too far gone? I agree, LL.

LSP said...

Liberland sounds interesting, AS.

LSP said...

Well said, XS3.

LSP said...

Infidel, you're such a hater.

Anonymous said...

Generally speaking it is right and rational that people should obey the law. However, jailing this woman? This seems frankly disproportionate and wholly unnecessary given the range of penalties which the law provides for.Really this story reminds one of what happened to Christians in the Soviet bloc 30 plus years ago.

LSP said...

Better get gay, Anonymous. Or go to jail.