Browse By

Kim Davis Protesters Say It Themselves: The Issue is Imposing Religious Law on the American People

Listen to the words and read the signs of the protesters supporting government official Kim Davis in her insistence upon taking away same-sex couples’ marriage rights and it becomes clear what the basis for their position is.

“It’s about God. That’s the main important thing.”

“God’s Will, Not Ours”

“Acts 5:29 We Ought to Obey God Rather Than Men”

“God’s Marriage: One Man, One Woman”

“No to sodomite perversion”

“My piece of this nation is still under God!”

“Man shall leave father & mother and cleave to his wife Mark 10:7”

“More fear man, they don’t fear God. She said that she was doing this under God’s authority. She is 1,000 per cent correct. She is echoing what western man has said for over 1,500 years now. And that is that divine law trumps human laws.”

These are people who don’t like same-sex marriage and want it to go away despite the state of the law.  These are people who want to impose Christian religious law over all people in the United States of America.  This is their agenda.  They say it themselves.

Sources: The Courier-Journal, the UK Independent, the Courier-Journal, LEX18

16 thoughts on “Kim Davis Protesters Say It Themselves: The Issue is Imposing Religious Law on the American People”

  1. Dave says:

    Ryan Gajewski writing for the Hollywood Reporter quotes Christopher Ciccone, gay brother of Madonna:

    “Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners.”

    “The county clerk in [Kentucky] deserves about as much support as you give her if she were a Muslim [woman] who insisted on covering her face … ”

    ” … but why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don’t follow federal law when they choose not to?”

    “Is it so difficult to allow this woman her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith [and] … the rights we have all fought for mean nothing if we deny her hers.”

    Those gay guys. You never know what they’ll say.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      If you look, you can also find Jews for Jesus, old people for ending Social Security, and teachers against higher education.

      But let’s add clarity here. What interesting use of brackets and ellipses, Dave! And you didn’t provide a link to the story, either. What don’t you want me to read? His entire post, which you can also find at Facebook (since it was a Facebook post):

      “The county clerk in Kentucy deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a muslim women who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without ur mans approval…..perspective is everything…..this woman is a civil servant, she is required to follow federal law…..but why should she….when DOJ and other civil authories don’t follow federal law when they choose not to…..i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind…or the abstract notion of “sanctuary cities”…..i always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches…….these things aside….this is why we have elections…..if the folks of this county in Kentucy don’t want her as the county clerk….then don’t have to vote for her…..that is how a democracy works….not to mention the courts….in the mean time…..since when are we the arbiter of other peoples faith?…….can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i’m not mistaken, it’s in the constitution…..something about religious freedom or something……selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy….freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength. Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice. Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners. Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion?…or must we destroy her in order for here to betray her faith. No matter how we judge its truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.”

      These are not ellipses above, by the way, Christopher Ciccone actually writes with these five dot, four dot and three dot passages. This is his entire post.

      Your selective quotation flips the meaning of the first phrase and hides his awkward command of spelling and grammar. It also obscures the inconvenient fact that Christopher Ciccone takes contradictory positions within that passage, including the awkward position that goverment officials really shouldn’t be following the law.

      Links: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/madonnas-brother-defends-jailed-clerk-820753 and https://www.facebook.com/cgciccone/posts/10153641700136663

      1. Dave says:

        My interesting use of brackets and ellipses was for the sake of brevity and relevance, not to elicit innuendo. The full quotation reiterates the general point of the selective quotations given. When did an awkward command of spelling and grammar invalidate an opinion, other than an opinion on spelling and grammar?

        I made no attempt to obscure Ciccone’s seeming contradictory position, just as those who disagree have made no attempt to obscure their own schismatic position concerning political prisoners. This is third world stuff we’re seeing from our government.

        1. Mark says:

          An inability to write with proper grammar and spelling indicates to me that the writer is either careless or uneducated. In either circumstance, the value I place on his/her opinion is suitably reduced.

          1. ella says:

            Mark, journalistic writers write as I did, shall we say awhile back. Fiction writers sometimes deliberately misuse the language and misspell for effect. And then there are those who can’t feel one hand or the other and have difficulty writing, especially as fast as they are thinking. Granted, it would be better to slow down, but there you have it. Please forgive these instances and give credit for a 12 year old, kinda under educated, just doin’ the best they can. Speakin’ for ma-sef Ellie.

            “These are people who don’t like same-sex marriage and want it to go away despite the state of the law. These are people who want to impose Christian religious law over all people in the United States of America. This is their agenda. They say it themselves.”
            Those darn Christians.

          2. Dave says:

            Mark, if one argues against his spelling and grammar, a reasonably educated person will win that argument easily. Perhaps it is not so easy to rebut the points he made, which are worthy of discussion. Not saying here that they can’t be rebutted, just that we tend to pick the easy targets sometimes and miss our opportunity to communicate.

        2. Jim Cook says:

          To me, Dave, this is not primarily an issue of spelling and grammar. To me, the issues regarding your treatment of this quote are:

          1) You turned the meaning of Ciccone’s declaration about a hypothetical Muslim woman on its head through omission,
          2) You further omitted parts of Ciccone’s statement that showed he was arguing both sides of the coin, and
          3) (only third) You fixed Ciccone’s spelling and grammatical errors, giving his sloppy, quickly dashed-off self-contradicting statement a more coherent appearance.

          1. Dave says:

            Dang, Jim. I just can’t help doing things for the sake of clarity sometimes. If you think I was not faithful in the “translation” then charge it to an effort to help the reader, not Ciccone. My bad. Really. I understand that to you it looks like an attempt at obfuscation, but that was not my intent.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            OK.

  2. ella says:

    He makes complete sense to me,but then that is a type of speech that covers a complete thought, not disjointed thoughts, to complete the meaning. The dots are effect to make a person think, when I do it that way. He does not take the position that government officials ought not follow the law, but that they have not in other circumstances, such as sanctuary cites, making a precedent for other situations. Can the Supreme Court make law, law that is instantly in effect in the 50 states? When a state has laws in force which contradict what the Supreme Court says? And those laws are still in effect in those states? When did the “Supreme” Court gain this power? States Rights, what are States Right for?

      1. ella says:

        So the Constitution was taken down over 200 years ago. Separation of Powers became, the Executive and Congress vs the Supreme Court. And there are ‘Justices’ on the bench today that are relishing that power. Wonderful, Socialist ‘Justices’. So that is why Obama gets along with them so well. All needed is Sanders and the turn the flag upside down. The Constitution is almost written out of existence. We were taught that it would be done. The vote goes on just as it does in Sudan. But as it was said on FOX last night, ‘Yea, but half of the ones who want to vote for Trump are Independents, and half of them live in states where they cannot vote!’ So Trump doesn’t stand a chance. Independent voters should be warned to join either major party so their vote will count and so they can all have the legal right to vote. That was taken away when the right to vote for whoever you choose was taken away. We must vote along Party lines.

  3. Tom says:

    Oh, you still think you have RIGHTS?! That’s amusing. Wait til their taken away like Habeus Corpus, then all of a sudden they become privileges to be taken away by the government you voted for, for your protection (ha-ha)!

  4. ella says:

    Obama takes Christian rights away from Human Rights violations: http://beginningandend.com/state-department-removes-christian-persecution-from-human-rights-report/
    Christians right to pray in schools taken away: http://www.forthardknox.com/?p=10
    Atheists sue for the right to remove Christian symbol: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/athiests-sue-over-world-trade-center-cross_n_912304.html
    Christians persecuted world wide: http://www.saintanthonyofpadua.net/messaggero/pagina_stampa.asp?R=&ID=118
    Even Billy Graham, a gentle soul if ever there was one, questioned: http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/7-examples-of-discrimination-against-christians-in-america/

    I could keep going but the link rule must be observed, it is too much even for a Christian.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Billy Graham was not a gentle soul. He was a virulent anti-semite, racist and homophobe who promoted taking over the American democratic government to establish a theocracy that would deny the rights of non-Christians.

      Your complaint about removal of a section abuses against religious liberty (not “Christian rights”) is three years out of date. From the most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from the State Department: “For far too many people, 2014 was defined by suffering and abuse perpetrated by terrorist groups exploiting religious discourse and divisions to advance their totalitarian ideology, or by governments, such as Syria, sometimes acting in the name of combatting terrorism. In parts of the Middle East and Africa, violent extremists have made it clear that not only do they have zero regard for human rights; they have zero regard for human life, period. We’ve seen groups like ISIL burn human beings alive, barbarically behead prisoners, sell girls into slavery, and execute innocents widely and indiscriminately. Almost every week brings new examples of just how far the evil of these groups reaches. We all witnessed the brutality and nihilism of the horrific attacks by Pakistani Taliban and Boko Haram on schoolchildren, the assassinations of Charlie Hebdo journalists, and numerous outrages and killings carried out by ISIL. The rise of ISIL was in part a consequence of, and illustrated the dangers of, atrocities committed by the government of Syria and failures of inclusive governance in Iraq.”

      Section 2.c. of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from the State Department is “Religious Liberty”.

      Your “Fort Hard Knox” source doesn’t name any specific case in which the right of children to pray in schools has been taken away. There’s a reason for that. The right of children to pray in school has not been taken away. What cannot be done is for churches to take over public schools in order to force and coerce non-Christian students to take part in Christian religious rituals such as prayer. Students remain free to pray or not pray individually as they choose.

      Atheists sued to prevent the installation of a Christian religious symbol at a governmental museum. What’s wrong with that? Why should Christians be allowed to co-opt the public sphere, using tax money to promote their religion above others?

      Christians persecuted worldwide? Are they persecuted in the Vatican City? How about in Alabama? Are Christians being persecuted in Alabama?

      Maybe you could “keep going”, but you would only “keep going” in failing to substantiate your claims, Ella.

      1. ella says:

        I would expect that from you J Clifford and Alabama is one of the Bible Belt states.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!