I vehemently disagree with forcing private businesses to accept and cater to homosexual unions.
Glad we can agree on that part.
But government is a different animal. They serve all citizens. Private sectors should be able to deny their services to anyone.
I concede that to some degree. But I believe this is a U.S.S.C. ruling that is a caving in to Political Correctness, and therefore the USSC pro-gay ruling federalizing gay marriage is just as much a partisan act as Kim Davis refusing to authorize those same gay marriage certifications.
I would argue that we are a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, whose founders intended Biblical principles to be part of our schools and education, and founders who believed that the turning away from Christian principles would be the point that our democratic republic would fall in the ashbin of history, along with every previous attempt at democracy.
Where God is mentioned 5 times in our Declaration of Independence.
Where our Constitution is signed "In the Year of Our Lord", and is a contract between a government and its people, patterned after the contract between God and Man in the Old and New Testaments.
And it is out of conviction for her religious freedom suppressed by an unjust Supreme Court ruling that Kim Davis refuses to endorse with her signature or with the stamp of the office she represents.
How is that different from the countless other public officials who refuse to report illegal immigrants, or turn them over to federal authorities for deportation.
They are not removed from office, why is only Kim Davis required to do so or be removed?
Likewise sanctuary cities.
Likewise other court clerks nationwide who have refused to authorize licenses for firearms.
Their business will suffer or prosper accordingly. But whether Mrs. Davis likes it or not she doesn't work for Costco. She could have compromised without compromising her stance( I won't issue the marriage licenses personally but I won't stop or punish my deputies from doing so) Or she could have stepped down and stopped feeding off the teet of the public.
I see a judge and state system that offered her freedom from prosecution if she compromised her beliefs. The judge (or state) could
also comprominse, could create a second wing specifically for gay marriage licenses. They could simply have them obtained by mail from another county clerk's office (I've done this for my auto registration, and for my city, state and county professional licenses). If I mail it at least two weeks or so in advance, what difference does it make which state clerk offices issue the license? West Palm Beach or Fort Lauderdale courthouse, same difference, same distance. Every county has one. And as I said, nationwide, there are many public officials who get away with principled stands, or even posturing for their stated convictions.
Why is only Kim Davis not allowed to make such a stand, against a law she considers immoral and illegal?
Homosexuals pay taxes and obey the same laws we do. Why shouldn't they be afforded the same rights and protections as straight citizens? We don't live in a theocracy. I don't want the course of my life dictated by atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, scientologists, etc etc etc. Two dudes signing a legal document and putting a ring on their finger doesn't nullify my marriage at all. If you believe gay marriage is against God's laws, then it's not binding to him. Do you think He gives a shit that some dinky court said its ok? Do you think he has to accept it? Does it harm you or your fellow citizens in some way? So why do you care? It's not your life and its not your business.
Again, what two gays or lesbians do is fine by me, so long as they don't put the gun of state authority to my head and force me, against my own beliefs, to say it is right and just, and the same as Christian marriage.
I've listed the Old and New Testament verses in these topics a number of times in the past. The incompatibility of gay union with heterosexual marriage is unmistakeably clear, from the Judao-Christian perspective (and I've never gotten the impression it is any more acceptable among Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims I've met over several decades), and it is only by re-writing Bible scripture that "gay marriage" can be alleged with a straight face.
As I've said for 10 years, if gays would be fine with civil union, OUT of the religious context of
marriage, I would be fine with it.
But when gays use it as a beach-head and a weapon to further undermine and deprive Christians of rights, then yeah, I have a huge problem with it.
In my adult years since 1981, I don't see that prior to gay marriage, that gays had any inability to live together, any inability to have many if not most employers provide insurance benefits to them and their partners or adopted children, any inability to assign their possessions in a will to their partner like everyone else, any inability that barred them from military service, or any inability to seek their employment of choice (quite the contrary, I cited statistics that gay white men are actually the single highest wage-earning demographic).
I firmly believe the sole purpose of gay marriage is
to deprive Christians of THEIR rights in a zero-sum game. One side gains rights, the other side loses theirs, and that is precisely gays' intent (at least at the activist/leadership level).
It comes down to telling business owners that they cannot respectfully decline photography or wedding cakes to a gay ceremony, not without being fined out of business or imprisoned.
It means as a next step forcing Biblical/conservative churches to consent to providing gay marriage ceremonies, or be deprived of their tax-exempt status. It means that Christians quoting scripture saying homosexuality is immoral (on radio, on television, or in a church or outside religious ceremony) becomes a hate crime punishable by fines or imprisonment. (i.e., again weaponizing government as the enforcement/imtimidation arm against all political dissent.)
That is precisely the reason gays have pushed for open acceptance in the military since Bill Clinton authorized it in 1993. To leverage using a federal acceptance of gays in the military as a precedent to force acceptance across all public and private jurisdictions. Which gays finally succeeded in doing in June of this year, forcing all 50 states to recognize gay marriage from another state.
Whether you like it or not, this is not a battle limited to the public sector, and if gays are raged against and pushed back against by conservative dissenter, gays have only themselves and their own intolerance toward all those who don't share their beliefs.
Seeing Kim Davis and Huckabee on stage today made me cringe, in their victory lap with "Eye of the Tiger" blasting. A more sober public statement would have served their cause better. But however imperfect the messengers, perhaps they see what's coming a bit clearer than most. This is a beach-head, a first step, toward further suppression of all non-gay dissent. In an endless series of repressive "progressive" new laws.
Gay Nazis, indeed.
