Kim Davis and Care for the Soul

DSM-5It has happened. In Kentucky on Thursday last week federal Judge David Bunning ordered the Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis jailed for refusing to issue a marriage license to sodomites. When the news was heard outside the courthouse, the crowd burst into a chant of “Love won! Love won!” Think of the implications of that. The supporters of sodomite-unmarriage cheered the jailing of Kim Davis claiming, “Love won.”

The persecution of Christians is relabeled as a victory of Love. It reminded me of the Roman Coliseum. The pagans cheer at the persecution of the disciples of Jesus Christ. Persecution in our land has reached the next level.

I thought it prudent to dig a little into the Supreme’s opinion known now as Obergefell.

Ted Cruz 2016


Tracing the Roots of the Supreme’s opinion in Obergefell The Word of God clearly declares what took place in our land in Romans 1:22.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:22. So one conclusion is abundantly clear at the outset – the Supremes did not look to God’s Word as any type of authority for the opinion they wrote. They made no reference to it at all because for them the Word of God has no authority in any arena of life whatsoever. The question is what did they look to as a competent relevant authority for the decision they made? The answer when we drill down is they relied upon the supposed authority of the so-called “science” of psychology.

The Amici Curiae brief the Supremes relied upon from the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association and the national Association of Social Workers among other Medical Associations. That 50 page brief stated its conclusions as “Homosexuality Is A Normal Expression of Human Sexuality, Is Generally Not Chosen, and Is Highly Resistant To Change… Gay Men and Lesbians Form Stable, Committed Relationships That Are Equivalent to Heterosexual Relationships.” That is a huge assertion. So we have to ask how did the American Psychological Association reach this conclusion. Prior to December 14, 1973 their desk reference manual the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders II (DSM II) considered same sex attractions disordered. This mental illness was listed in under the label, “Homosexuality.” So what changed?

Sodomite terrorists hijacked the APA to change the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM) on December 14, 1973. The history of this is solid; you can read it – “How Homosexual Terrorists Got Homosexuality Removed From the American Psychiatric Association.” “While activists were terrorizing psychiatrists, [including physical assault of one psychologist who opposed their agenda] the APA’s Board of Trustees was being stacked with members sympathetic to the pro sodomy cause…. An article appearing in Psychiatric News about this time recalls that pro sodomy activists were beginning to speak of unyielding psychiatrists as “war criminals,” with obvious implications.

Possibly in fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, on December 15, 1973, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association capitulated to the demands of the radicals…[one of the sodomite terrorists] Barbara: “It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first zapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.” The APA was thoroughly intimidated. In 1974, after the APA’s vote, [another of the sodomite terrorists] Katz Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years.

Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” So the change to accept sodomy as normal was never about the so called “science,” it was threats, intimidation, physical violence, stacking the board of directors in other words it was a political decision having nothing to do with the facts of the matter. So a very important question is why would the highest court rely upon decisions which were not essentially based on facts?

Why did the court even rely upon psychologists as experts? And here is where we drill down to the deepest roots of what has happened in our land – the psychologization of law in America. Instead of law being based upon the fixed absolute standard of the Creator, the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God–the Bible–instead we have been subjected to the new high priests and priestesses of the religion of Psychology. Where did these new high priests come from, from where did their authority derive, why should anyone believe what they propound? What took place was a revolution in thought on the question what is man?

Learn more about your Constitution with Pastor David Whitney and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Rev. David Whitney has been teaching the Christian heritage and history of our country with Institute on the Constitution for over a decade where he serves as Senior Instructor, and Radio show host on Dr. Stan Monteith’s Radio Liberty. Whitney is an Honors Scholar graduate from Rutgers University with a Masters Degree from Denver Seminary. A minister for 32 years, he is currently the Pastor of Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church of Pasadena, Maryland. As a member of the clergy, an activist and radio personality, Whitney has appeared in Washington Times, on Voice of America, Fox, ABC, NBC, CSPAN, BBC, and more.
David Whitney
View all articles by David Whitney
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • DCM7

    “The persecution of Christians is relabeled as a victory of Love.”
    In our age “love” has been redefined from basically meaning “acting in someone’s general best interest” to meaning either “sex” or “giving someone whatever they want.”

    “Gay Men and Lesbians Form Stable, Committed Relationships That Are Equivalent to Heterosexual Relationships”
    That claim is an absolute hoot to anyone who understands homosexuality vs. normal sexuality.

    “Possibly in fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, on December 15, 1973, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association capitulated to the demands of the radicals.”
    And now people commonly make reference to the APA’s position on homosexuality, apparently seriously believing that said position has any credibility whatsoever. That is also a hoot.

    • franklinb23

      I have an objection to gambling. Suppose I’m in a state (like Nevada) where gambling is legal. Should I be able to deny a building permit to someone seeking to build a casino because of principled objections to it? They have a “legal” right to build a place where (in my opinion) people simply come to empty their pockets and often leave in debt. I don’t like it.

      Should I be free to turn them away because I think it’s in their best interest, the interests of their potential customers and the interests of the city in which I live?

      • Bob Ellis

        If we were dealing with a situation where legislation was passed in accordance with the requirements of our constitutional republic, one’s options would be considerably more limited.

        I believe that in a situation where a law was passed to allow something immoral or morally questionable, and it was done in a constitutional manner, a person who was ALREADY employed in a government position should be accommodated according to the dictates of conscience where possible. That would be more feasible for a ground-level employee than an official who is in the position of actually making policy decisions. An elected official should rightly have the options that Kim Davis should have according to the laws of her jurisdiction: (1) continue to act in accordance with the dictates of conscience and leave it up to the voters to decide your fate (they are the boss of the elected official; (2) face any lawful efforts to impeach or censure according to the laws of that jurisdiction; (3) resign and allow others to implement things that you consider immoral; (4) give in and participate in things you know are immoral.

        Where a law allowing immoral behavior has ALREADY been consitutionally passed before you seek employment in a government position, I believe it’s only fair that you don’t seek employment in a position you know will require you to commit immoral acts. And perhaps you could campaign to have the law changed, THEN seek employment in that position after the law had been changed.

        Of course, in this case, we aren’t even dealing with a law that was passed according to the requirements of our constitutional republic. We’re dealing with an illegal and unconstitutional-in addition to being immoral-edict being forced on the country by five lawless oligarchs.

        Kim Davis is 100% right in doing what she has been doing, and everyone who opposes her (including the five lawless oligarchs in Washington D.C.) are 100% wrong.

        To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson

  • Pingback: Kim Davis and Curing the Soul of Man()