Kentucky Clerk Exposes Supreme Contempt for US Constitution

United_States_Constitution_fThe lawless Left is threatening a county clerk in Kentucky with contempt of court charges for having the audacity to obey the rule of law, the law of Kentucky, and the U.S. Constitution.

From A Kentucky county clerk on Tuesday rejected requests for marriage licenses for two same-sex couples despite a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court’s against the clerk, according to media reports.

Ted Cruz 2016


The top U.S. court on Monday turned down Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis’ request for an emergency order allowing her to continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples while she appeals a federal judge’s order requiring her to do so…

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, leaving Davis no legal grounds to refuse to grant licenses. A district judge could now hold her in contempt, which can carry steep fines or jail time.

She has every legal ground for denying two homosexuals a fake license for a fake marriage. Davis is one of the few officials in the nation who is actually doing her job and upholding the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

As I have explained several times before, there is no authority in the U.S. Constitution for the federal government to redefine marriage, not in the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8 or anywhere else, including the much-perverted Fourteenth Amendment.  The only law that exists concerning marriage in the federal government and most of the states affirms what every civilization throughout history has instinctively recognized: that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman.

Any government edict which contradicts existing law, or any federal edict which assumes authority not granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution is by definition unconstitutional and is illegal.

The U.S. Supreme Court and every government agency and official collaborating with the Supreme Court majority’s unconstitutional edict is in contempt of the U.S. Constitution.

Would I rather be in contempt of a rogue court committing an illegal act, or would I rather be in contempt of the U.S. Constitution? I’d rather be in contempt of a rogue court than in contempt of the U.S. Constitution, especially if I had sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it is pure contempt that the Supreme Court majority and all collaborators are heaping on the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the people, the institution of marriage, and the Natural Law upon which this nation was founded.

As sad as it is, as frightening as it is, for the first time in our nation’s history, we are on the cusp of seeing the American government punish people for upholding morality and obeying the law.  Yes, lawbreakers punishing people for obeying the law!

And the so-called “Republicans” the American people used to be able to look to for protection against lawlessness…most of them refuse to use the power they have to do what is right (even as many so-called Christians applaud these feckless collaborators for being such goooooood leaders).

There came a time nearly 2,000 years ago when people had to make a decision whether they were going to obey God or obey corrupt men.

There came a time 239 years ago when people had to make a decision whether they were going to obey Natural Law or obey corrupt tyrants.

The time for such decisions are once again upon good people.  Kim Davis in Kentucky has made the right decision. Will good people, will our leaders, rise up and make the right decision and back her up? You can be sure our so-called “leaders” of today won’t do the right thing until “we the people” make them.

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:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • franklinb23

    Kim Davis isn’t a small business owner. She’s an employee of the state who is responsible for authorizing civil contracts. That’s it. She’s not being asked to perform a religious ceremony. Just because you are serving as a witness to a legal partnership in no way implies you “agree” with the partnership itself.

    If she cannot fulfill her duties, she should quit. There are plenty of jobs out there that don’t require any involvement with authorizing legal partnerships. She just doesn’t want to give up her $80,000 a year government job.

    It’s also astonishing to me that this woman expects civil marriage to reflect Biblical marriage considering she’s on her FOURTH marriage herself. When confronted with such a woman, Christ Himself said that the man the woman was living with was not, in fact, her husband.

    Government employees are hardly known for being competitive and driven as it is. Give them carte blanche to sit on their butts and refuse to do WHAT THEY WERE HIRED FOR AND ARE PAID to do because “God said it was ok” is hardly going to help that fact.

    End this now. Fire her.

    • Bob Ellis

      The marriage of a Jew and a Christian, or an atheist and a Christian, do not violate the definition of marriage. They are contrary to the advice of Scripture, and contrary to what a Christian should do. But as liberals are so fond of pointing out, we do not have religious tests for government actions in this country.

      What we DO have are many laws on the books, both at the federal level and the state level, that affirm what every civilization throughout history has instinctively understood: that the relationship of marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman.

      Kim Davis should NEVER resign for obeying the law and upholding the U.S. Constitution-the constitution which limits the authority of the federal government, and does NOT include the authority to even PRETEND to redefine marriage. She is doing the job she was elected to do, which is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, and carry out the laws (not unconstitutional opinion-based edicts) of our land.

      • franklinb23

        Kim Davis is not a minister.

        She was elected to uphold the laws of the land, not act as her own Supreme Court by interpreting the laws herself and then deciding which laws she was going to obey or not obey based on her own personal (and very subjective) convictions. This is a recipe for anarchy, and I’ve said this repeatedly.

        What you’re implying is that any and every employee can be a law unto themselves. Don’t feel like doing your job? No problem. Claim that God is your only authority and that God doesn’t want you to work on Sunday (or Saturday or whatever other day of the week that it is you don’t feel like working). What ever happened to employer’s rights? Those are thrown out the window too, now?

        Again: she knew that part of the job would be facilitating the marriages of many folks who would not be permitted to marry within a church. Are you aware of any Bible-believing pastors who would marry a Christian and a Jew or a Christian and an atheist? What about a couple who have been divorced three times already as Kim Davis has? I’m not.

        If your job requirements are against your personal convictions, then it is your responsibility to find another job. Kim Davis knew going into this job that she would be facilitating marriages that pastors would reject because of the Biblical guidelines of marriage. That never bothered her before. If all of a sudden she realized that the job she voluntarily signed up for *AND IS BEING PAID TO DO* is against her convictions, she should resign if she had any sense of conscience at all.

        • Bob Ellis

          No, Kim Davis is not a minister. You don’t have to be a minister to know what every civilization throughout history has instinctively understood: that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage. You also don’t have to be a minister to understand that the U.S. Constitution provides no authority for the federal government to attempt to redefine marriage. You also don’t have to be a minister to understand that the only actual law which exists on the subject says at both the federal level and in the overwhelming majority of states (including Kentucky) what every civilization throughout history has instinctively understood: that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage. You also don’t have to be a minister to know how important it is to uphold the oath you swore as a public official to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the law, and not surrender that charge to the mindless opinions of activists.

          You are right: she was elected precisely to uphold the laws of the land and the U.S. Constitution. Did you not read the article? That is exactly what she is doing.

          And no, I am NOT implying that any and every employee can be a law unto themselves. Precisely the opposite-and that includes judges who are not empowered to make law, but are only empowered to adjudicate on EXISTING law. And as I’ve pointed out several times now, existing law says the same thing that every civilization throughout history has instinctively understood: that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage.

          You should render your advice about people who don’t feel like doing their job to the Supreme Court majority who chose to ignore the constitutional limits on their authority and have attempted to substitute OPINION for LAW. They are in the wrong, not Kim Davis.

          No Bible-believing pastor should marry a Christian and a Jew, or a Christian and an atheist. But as God-haters are so very zealous to point out at every opportunity, there is no religious test for government actions, including the issuance of a marriage license. The only requirement in this regard is defined in law, that the interested parties be capable of forming a legitimate marriage (of legal age, not married to someone else, not a close relative, and of the opposite sex).

          And since you’ve joined the bandwagon of hypocrites who love to harp on Kim Davis’ PAST immorality while ignoring your own CURRENT immorality and the CURRENT immorality of those attempting to counterfeit a marriage, it should be noted that her sexual sins occurred before she became a Christian a few years ago. She has since realized the error of her ways and started walking on the right path-something you and every hypocrite who is harping at her should get your act together and do.

          Kim Davis’ job requirements have not changed. She is still charged with upholding the U.S. Constitution (which provides no authority whatsoever for the federal government to attempt to redefine marriage) and Kentucky law (which says what every civilization throughout history has instinctively understood: that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage).

          That is what she is being paid to do, and that is what she is doing. If you don’t like the rule of law, and would instead prefer a country where powerful people get to make the rules according to their whim rather than according to the requirements of a constitutional republic, there are many such cesspools to choose from.

          We Americans, however, believe in what is right, and in upholding the rule of law. If you and your fellow activists insist on anarchy and tyranny, leave us in peace.

          • franklinb23

            “And no, I am NOT implying that any and every employee can be a law unto themselves. ”

            Okay, then. So what are you saying?

            If this is about “religious liberty”, what should a government employee (or any employee, really) be free to do or not do under the guise of “religious freedom” and be able to keep their job?
            Be specific.

            You have a more liberal stance on divorce and remarriage than some do (believe it or not, there are others who are even more rigid on Biblical marriage than you are!).

            Should a civil clerk be able to reject civil marriage licenses to previously married heterosexuals? Why or why not?

            After all, it’s their “sincerely held” religious beliefs based on their understanding of Scripture, yes?

            • Bob Ellis

              I was pretty crystal clear on what I said.

              This is about religious liberty, but it’s about far more than religious liberty. As I have explained repeatedly as nauseam, this is about the lawless, rogue activity of a majority of Supreme Court judicial activists and those who are going along with their unconstitutional lawlessness.

              The judicial branch is not empowered under the U.S. Constitution to create law. They can only adjudicate according to EXISTING law, and the only existing law on the matter is extremely clear in affirming what every civilization throughout history has instinctively recognized: that marriage can only be formed between a man and a woman.

              Therefore, if the Supreme Court rules in any manner contrary to existing law, or assumes authority not granted to it by the U.S Constitution (and if you check Article 1 Section 8 which lists the enumerated powers of the federal government, there is no authority there for the federal government to attempt to redefine marriage, nor does Article 3 grant the Supreme Court or any other court the authority to make law), then any opinion it renders is just that: an opinion. It has no legal authority. It is not binding on anyone. In fact, it is unconstitutional and illegal and warrants, at a minimum, the impeachment of any judge or other government official who participates in such illegal acts.

              One more time: it’s about THE RULE OF LAW.

              • franklinb23

                So do you believe that the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia was likewise invalid? The existing laws criminalized interracial marriages, and I think it was the prevailing opinion at the time that those laws were valid. (I still remember my parents objecting to interracial marriages on “moral” grounds, although they long ago rejected this stance).

                Was it an overreach at that time for SCOTUS to overturn the will of the states and the general populace?

              • Bob Ellis

                There is no practical reason why two people of different skin colors (and anti-miscegenation laws were crafted wholly to prevent black people from marrying white people) or ethnicities cannot form a marriage. There is nothing in the Bible which prohibits it. There is nothing in Natural Law (the law upon which all law is to be based, as our Declaration of Independence points out) that prohibits two people of different ethnicities from marrying.

                As every civilization throughout history has recognized, it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage. To put it bluntly, just as you need a nut and a bolt to join together a machine, you need a penis and a vagina to join two people together in a meaningful relationship that has any purpose which is valuable to the state-and that purpose is the creation of the next generation of society. The man and the woman then bring their unique giftings as male and female together in the home to provide a balanced environment for the development of the child they created, where the child can see modeled how men and women interact in balanced complimentarianism.

                It does not take lighter skin, or darker skin, or red skin, or yellow skin, or brown skin, or white skin, or any other type of pigmentation to form a marriage. It does not take lighter skin, or darker skin, or red skin, or yellow skin, or brown skin, or white skin, or any other type of pigmentation to create a child-but it does require a penis and a vagina. It does not take lighter skin, or darker skin, or red skin, or yellow skin, or brown skin, or white skin, or any other type of pigmentation to create a balanced environment to model for a developing child the way men and women (and everyone is either a man or a woman, but not everyone is black, white, red, yellow, or brown) interact in a healthy manner.

                In other words, as I have painfully and exhaustively taken to extreme lengths to illustrate a point that almost everyone throughout human history instinctively understands, it takes a man and a woman to bring together the elements necessary to form a marriage…but skin color is utterly irrelevant to the relationship.

                Artificially segmenting human beings in marriage by skin color makes as much sense as segmenting them by hair color, height or eye color. Requiring that the participants in a marriage be one male and one female is so fundamental, so foundational to the proposition that it didn’t even need to be articulated until the recent insanity came upon society.

                Anti-miscegenation laws were an artificial construct crafted by racists which interfered with the creation of a marriage, unlike the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional edict which attempts to counterfeit a marriage. The former restricts a natural liberty, while the latter attempts to counterfeit and undermine society’s most important institution.

                As Loving pointed out, the fact that Virginia’s law only concerned marriages involving white people (and not Asians to Latinos, or blacks to Native Americans) reveals that the anti-miscegenation laws had no basis in morality or practicality, but were rather motivated and justified in nothing but a white supremacy mentality.

                The U.S. Constitution has valid application in clearing a path for people to have access to the God-given liberties they rightfully should have under Natural Law. That was being denied to them by racist-motivated anti-miscegenation laws, a construct which interfered with Natural Law. There is no right for two men or two women to counterfeit marriage, because Natural Law recognizes no such thing, general morality recognizes no such thing, and there is no practical or scientific purpose in such a thing. In other words, overturning anti-miscegenation laws restores the Natural Law, while endorsing the counterfeiting of marriage denies Natural Law.

                For those who don’t know what Natural Law is (even though it is referenced foundationally in the Declaration of Independence, as the foundation of our nation and government)…

                The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction, … the moral law, called also the law of nature. – Sir Edward Coke

                man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. – Sir William Blackstone

              • DCM7

                “The man and the woman then bring their unique giftings as male and female together in the home to provide a balanced environment for the development of the child they created, where the child can see modeled how men and women interact in balanced complimentarianism.”

                This is where someone might jump in and say, “But wait — procreation is not a requirement for marriage, and people can procreate without marriage. So should heterosexuals who can’t or won’t procreate be denied marriage?”

                Something comes in here that’s even harder to explain to people who don’t want to understand than most things are: the unique value and meaning of a healthy, committed male/female coupling, even *beyond* procreation. A same-sex coupling doesn’t just fail to compare to a real marriage with children; it fails to compare to a real marriage, period. To fail to acknowledge that is to pretend that there is no meaningful difference between male and female; and “gay marriage” proponents, when backed against a wall, inevitably have to either admit that their position assumes that, or deny any recognition that marriage has any particular meaning.

                As I like to put it: Marriage with children is like driving to work (i.e., the purpose is completely fulfilled). Marriage without children is like driving for pleasure (i.e., the purpose isn’t completely fulfilled but it isn’t violated). A same-sex “marriage” is like driving on the wrong side of the road (i.e., the purpose is violated).

              • Bob Ellis


                While a real marriage between a man and a woman may or may not produce children in this day and age of widespread contraception (and odds are, it still will, since both of my children were conceived on the pill), a counterfeit marriage involving two men or two women CAN NEVER and WILL NEVER produce a single child. BY DESIGN. By the elements present in the arrangement.

                (And to be clear, even in this age of widespread access to contraception, the overwhelming majority of long-term heterosexual relationships will result in reproduction…while even a theoretical 1,000-year homosexual union will NEVER produce a single child, even if the couple desperately wanted to produce a child. The cold hard facts of this reality, along with their implications, cannot be overstated, because they are central to the nature and purpose of marrriage.)

                A counterfeit marriage also cannot provide the stable, balanced environment for a child to grow up watching men and women working together to achieve a common purpose of paramount importance. In addition to robbing a developing child of the giftings of either a father or a mother, and robbing them of that balanced environment of cooperation being modeled, a home environment that deliberately and by design rejects one or the other sex sends a dangerous, unhealthy and imbalanced message to a developing child: one or the other sex is undesirable or unnecessary, or both.

                Ultimately, without the production of children, there is really no state interest whatsoever for the state to be involved in the regulation of or caring whatsoever about marriage. As others have so aptly put it, government has no practical or fundamental interest in maintaining a “friendship registry”, or a “regular sex partner” registry for that matter. What’s the point? From the secularist mindset (which is the point of origin for the insanity of counterfeit marriage), why in the world should government care who’s screwing who? Really, why in the world should government care-much less be involved?

                The glaring and crystal clear answer is that it should not. Absent the need for the role of creating the next generation of society and providing a balanced environment for the development of that generation (and if we’re saying that two men or two women who cannot provide this is the same thing as a REAL marriage-and that’s EXACTLY what the counterfeit marriage movement is saying), there is no reason whatsoever for the state to be involved in or even care about who’s screwing who on a regular basis.

                This truth yet again exposes the reality that the counterfeit marriage push has nothing whatsoever to do with access to marriage (i.e. what marriage is really about). It is nothing but a vain quest to legitimize something that can never and will never be legitimate. It’s all about the label, and feeling good about yourself (and no person can legitimately feel good about committing an illegitimate and immoral act).

                BTW, your driving analogy with respect to marriage is a great one.

              • franklinb23

                “Ultimately, without the production of children, there is really no state interest whatsoever for the state to be involved in the regulation of or caring whatsoever about marriage.”

                Would you say your marriage has had no beneficial or stabilizing effect for both you and your wife psychologically and financially or that these benefits wouldn’t exist had you not had children?

                I’m doubting that.

                Even without children, marriage has its benefits. It can increase financial security for both people (meaning less reliance on the government). Further, in times of health problems or other challenges, one person can act as the caretaker for the other.

                I think society has an interest in encouraging that and rewarding it, don’t you? These types of advantages are not usually seen in just supportive “friendships” with people you see on a casual basis.

              • DCM7

                “Would you say your marriage has had no beneficial or stabilizing effect for both you and your wife psychologically and financially or that these benefits wouldn’t exist had you not had children?”
                Based on what he’s said elsewhere, I’m sure he wouldn’t say that at all. But the key is that many of the most beneficial effects are not just there because of there being two people; they’re there because there’s a man and a woman. As both Bob & I have pointed out, there are some very important effects of the male/female dynamic that two people of the same sex just cannot approximate; indeed, I doubt anyone who hasn’t participated in a successful (real) marriage can even comprehend them.

                (Bob) “a home environment that deliberately and by design rejects one or the other sex sends a dangerous, unhealthy and imbalanced message to a developing child: one or the other sex is undesirable or unnecessary, or both.”
                I should note that I got that unhealthy message simply from being raised by a divorced mother who wasn’t too impressed with men. The absence of an effective father in my life was devastating; I can only imagine what being raised in even less normal circumstances can do to a child. I’m sure that kids raised by “gay” couples turn out “perfectly OK” — in roughly the same superficial, inadequate way I turned out “perfectly OK.”

              • franklinb23

                Who’s “perfectly OK”? Most folks have issues to contend with even when they’re raised in traditional male-female households, liberal or conservative. Jeffrey Dahmer had heterosexual parents who never divorced, and the guy ended up killing and eating people. There are no guarantees, are there?

                That being said, there is a statistical disadvantage if one is raised in a single-parent household. It could be because of financial issues or a lack of discipline or both.

              • Bob Ellis

                According to what I’ve read about Jeffrey Dahmer’s childhood, his father was away from home a lot when he was young. His mother and father had a lot of very nasty arguments. His mother is reported to have had a drug addiction and attempted to commit suicide at one point. When he was 8, he was molested by a boy in his neighborhood.

                That’s more than enough to warp a child.

                As I mentioned on this or some other thread in the last few days, the incidence of childhood sexual abuse, or problems in how a child’s mother or father related to the opposite sex, are epidemic in the childhood background of most homosexuals. Many will admit it, and many will not. Having a law enforcement background, I know from experience that many children and even adults will tell themselves and others that the abuse and conflict they were subjected to as children was “normal” or “no big deal.” It’s a human way of trying to deal with something you can’t fix.

                Children are very impressionable, and their psyche is easily damaged. One or more parents who don’t model proper behavior to their child can cause untold damage to that young person. And putting a child in a home where the not-so-subtle message is being sent to them every single day that one or the other sex is either undesirable or unnecessary-or both-is also extremely harmful to a developing child.

                In this fallen world, a child has enough going against them as it is. This modern effort to undermine the sanctity and stability of marriage and family is nothing short of child abuse, and in a sane society would be considered criminal.

              • Bob Ellis

                Did you hear me? Are you capable of comprehension and intelligent, analytical thought at all? It’s really counterproductive to attempt a dialogue when the other party is unwilling or incapable of digesting and acknowledging certain glaringly obvious logical conclusions. I really hate repeating the same fundamental truths over and over and over and over and over again, but when they are repeatedly ignored, I have little choice if I am to continue refuting error. It’s that, or simply cut off the flow of error altogether.

                My wife’s and my financial and psychological stability is of no interest or concern whatsoever to the government. In fact, a government that would seek to stick its nose in the affairs of one or two adult and otherwise stable and healthy individuals is a government with way, WAY, WAY too much power (of course that doesn’t bother liberals at all).

                As I have already pointed out numerous times, the ONLY interest government has in the institution of marriage is in the “guardian” role of preventing it from being undermined. And WHY does government have that one and only interest in protecting the institution of marriage? As I pointed out many times before, the union of a man and a woman is the ONLY way the next generation of that society gets produced, and as a myriad of scientific reports prove, the stable environment of the biological mother and biological father of the aforementioned children in the same home for the duration of the child’s development is the BEST and really ONLY adequate environment for producing healthy, well-adjusted citizens (who will not go on to be a major drag on the resources of society, and quite possibly a menace to the person and property of their fellow citizens).

                There is nothing to prevent two people of any sexual combination from committing to one another, to prevent them from pooling their financial resources, or taking care of one another. Nothing whatsoever. People can do that with or without marriage.

                As I have pointed out ad nauseam, marriage is a UNIQUE institution and a UNIQUE relationship because it has a UNIQUE function and a UNIQUE product-one that two men or two women cannot possibly provide.

                Again, government has no interest whatsoever in maintaining a “friendship registry” or a registry of who’s screwing who. There is no governmental or societal purpose whatsoever in two people screwing each other on a regular basis.

                It is historically, scientifically and logically clear that the counterfeit marriage effort is not about access to the institution of marriage (which homosexuals already have, subject to the same requirements as heterosexuals), but about the desperate quest to force others to view their illegitimate sexual behavior as legitimate.

              • franklinb23

                No need to get testy. You know I generally am open to contrary opinions and ideas and am not going to resort to personal attacks.

                Besides, you shouldn’t let comments on a blog tick you off that much. It’s bad for the blood pressure. You’ll end up with a stroke and have to eat your food with a straw.

                Although I suppose I can relate. I called in to a radio show this week because the host (a pastor) just made some really stupid comments. He ended up cutting me off and going to a commercial. My pulse was up for about 2 hours I was so irritated. I looked in the mirror when I got home and my cheeks were flushed. Kind of silly, though, no?

              • Bob Ellis

                These may just be “comments on a blog” to you, but to decent people, it’s about extremely important things-things like honoring the Creator’s purpose, about safeguarding the institution of marriage to protect children, about the stability and prosperity of our civilization, about freedom, about honoring the Constitution that is our nation’s highest law, about the rule of law itself.

                I go to considerable lengths to research and present factual information, and to present it in a clear and logical manner. Granted, there are no doubt more knowledgeable and eloquent people out there, but my job is to be salt and light within the sphere God has given me, and I believe I do a pretty good job of it.

                I have no real qualms with ignorance; God knows I was ignorant and misled about a great number of things when I was younger. But I have little patience when the truth is presented in a clear manner…and then ignored or rejected. That’s morally and intellectually lazy and rebellious. A person ought to have the courage to accept compelling fact and logic when they encounter it, or at least have the decency to crawl in a hole and not offend rational thought if they can’t do that.

              • WXRGina

                I have great respect and admiration for Bob, Franklin. He has the most patience and wisdom of anyone I know in dealing with reprobate minds like yours. When you first came on here, we lavished you with praise, because we thought you might be receptive to the truth. But, you are not. Not in the least. If I were Bob, I would send you packing, because after all the effort that Bob and others here have expended on your recalcitrant rear-end you still remain wedded to dark, idiot error. We have done our work with you, and the Lord will NOT hold us accountable on that Day if you stand there poised for Hell for your refusal to accept His truth.

              • DCM7

                Franklin has always been noticeably more reasonable overall than most people who hold some of the specific positions he does. As tenuously as even otherwise reasonable and intelligent people may fail to acknowledge or comprehend some things, I’ve learned that it’s always best to watch my own “blood pressure,” so to speak.

              • WXRGina

                Yes, DCM, as I noted above when speaking of us having heaped praise on him back at the start of his coming here, he has been more “reasonable” than most, but after so long and his unwavering passive-aggressive persistence in wrong-headedness, I would leave him alone, because he will not open his eyes to truth. But, that’s just me.

              • franklinb23

                That’s too bad, Gina, because I think we agree on a number of things, primarily the need to change abortion laws and increase restrictions and our dislike of the political correctness that stifles free speech. I also support Pam Gellar’s efforts to increase awareness of the growing Islamic threat in the US and Europe as you do. I have even agreed that some gay activists go way too far in their activism, to the point of being near fascists in their inability to live and let live for those with sincere religious convictions.

                If you really see me a demon from Hell because I don’t agree with you on the public purpose of civil marriage or every aspect of homosexuality, well, I can’t really do anything about that. It doesn’t mean I’m not listening or can’t respect those with a different viewpoint. I just can’t force myself to believe something I don’t believe.


              • WXRGina

                No, Franklin, you’re not a “demon from Hell” You’re a human being. But Hell is where you’ll end up if you don’t give your life to Christ and let Him save you before you die.

    • Thisoldspouse

      Seems to me that the taxpayers who pay her salary voted overwhelmingly to affirm marriage between a man and a woman, as it has always been.

      I’m always more than a little baffled when leftists bring up “the taxpayers,” as if that proves some authority to push an agenda. That defense makes absolutely no sense. Criminals pay taxes, too. Should we countenance their wishes?

    • DCM7

      Why should anyone believe that a same-sex coupling is in any way comparable to *any* marriage between a man and a woman, even if the latter may be ill-advised in its specifics? There is no comparison beyond the fact that there are two human beings involved. To imply otherwise is to make the currently common, but always extremely misguided, assumption that men and women are perfectly interchangeable in precisely the areas that they are least so.

      • franklinb23

        “Why should anyone believe that a same-sex coupling is in any way comparable to *any* marriage between a man and a woman”

        I’m not saying they’re the same. I’m saying that the Bible you claim to believe in and uphold is very, very clear on what the permissible grounds for divorce and remarriage are as well as what types of unions should be blessed within a church.

        Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9

        These aren’t “suggestions” or “nice-to-haves”. They have been considered the standard within Christendom for 2000 years. If you are going to insist that civil marriage reflect those standards, at least be consistent. That’s all I’m asking.

        • DCM7

          “I’m not saying they’re the same.”
          Perhaps not, but a lot of arguments similar to yours definitely assume they’re the same.

          “Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9”
          I believe we’ve been over this before (in which case you seem not to have been paying attention). It seems that those verses are actually very commonly misunderstood because what they refer to isn’t relevant to “divorce” in the modern sense at all. What’s translated as “divorce” in the Bible frequently (though not always) refers to an ancient practice called “putting away” a wife. This actually involved *denying* a woman a proper divorce, thus leaving her destitute and without recourse, not even free to remarry. The “commits adultery” part actually makes more sense (and, IMO, *only* makes sense at all) once you know that.

          So you’re referring to a “Biblical” standard that isn’t even actually Biblical.

          • franklinb23

            Al Mohler would vehemently disagree with you as would the Catholic Church and most of Christendom before 1960 or thereabouts.

            • DCM7

              Well, I have to be more concerned about what God says than about who agrees or disagrees. If people have understood the passages in question as being incentive not to get divorced, then that’s fine. What I’d have a problem with is anyone placing judgment on people, for divorce and remarriage, that they don’t really have the right to place.

              Granted, I also believe that divorce has gotten too easy and too common, and it’s bothered me to see self-described Christians resort to it so casually. (For my own part, I have been divorced as a Christian, but anyone would be hard-pressed to point to a standard by which it shouldn’t have been allowed. In other words, if all Christians had to have as much justification for their divorces as I did, their divorce rate would be about 95% lower. Of course, Christians should have higher standards than I did when getting married in the first place!)

  • Conservative Republican

    Bob, Bob, Bob… What a novel idea to even think the Constitution should be followed! Democrats and faux Republicans violate the US & SD Constitution with impunity.
    Explain to me how Chicago thug lawyer Dennis Daugaard was able to sign a bill raising taxes that also contained another code subject of raising the speed limit on I-90? Two separate subjects. Clearly violates SD’s Constitution requirement of one subject one bill. Don’t even get me started on the separate issue of our RINO governor & his merry band of RINO legislators raising taxes, increasing spending, and increasing the size of SD government.
    The SD GOP has gone the way of the national GOP, it is overrun with former Democrats turned RINOs who march the SDGOP down an ever winding liberal path.

    • Bob Ellis

      And it happens because we the voters allow it to happen.

    • Thisoldspouse

      A leftist poster once told me that the “law” is whatever you can get away with.

      He stated this in reference to the blatant violation of U.S. immigration laws.

  • Pingback: Counterfeit Marriage: What It’s Really About()

  • Pingback: Counterfeit Marriage: What It’s Really About | The Right Side Blog()

  • Thisoldspouse

    Well, now Kim has been arrested, for, what the homosexual activists are always saying, “something that doesn’t affect anyone else.”

    • Bob Ellis

      Yep. We’re now officially here. America is now a place where you can be jailed for upholding your oath of office, for upholding the U.S. Constitution, for upholding the law you are sworn to uphold.

      I’d ask God to have mercy on us…but have proven beyond any doubt that we don’t deserve mercy. We deserve judgment.

      • Thisoldspouse

        I’m upping my allowances to 20 on my W-4. The illigitimate federal monarch will not, now, get any more of my money if I can help it.

        • franklinb23

          Let me know how that works out for you. Personally, I’d love to claim a few more exemptions myself! I could use that money on a trip to Italy or something.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Being somewhat of a tax guru, this practice is perfectly acceptable. As long as you pay your required taxes when ultimately due, there is no penalty, assuming some up-front conditions are in place.

            Personally, as quickly as society is devolving now, I think there is a pretty good chance that the federal govenment may not be demanding it when it comes due.

  • DCM7

    The highly liberal Yahoo News (“liberal” at basically the HuffPo level) has been linking to multiple stories about this. The overall picture is that people from that camp are really determined to make a big, conspicuous example of this woman.

    Could the intent of stamping out disagreement be any more obvious? This camp has been manipulating the system to pass laws that are unjust (in their favor); then, having the “law” on their side, they can “legally” persecute those who disagree with the injustice.

    Sorry if I sound like I’m invoking Godwin’s law, but… it’s beginning to look at lot like 1930s Germany here… and Christians are the new “Jews.”

  • Pingback: Are Christians Commanded to Surrender to Evil?()

  • Pingback: Are Christians Commanded to Surrender to Evil? | The Right Side Blog()