Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church


Did Kim Davis Break the Law?

September 7th, 2015, Promulgated by Dominick Anthony Zarcone
DID KIM DAVIS BREAK THE LAW?  (A good question for Labor Day!)
We knew it would happen.  We are glad it has happened.  A courageous woman of faith has stood up and said no; she would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But does Kim Davis have a legal leg to stand on?
The details of her story can be read at  Wikipedia
  Land of the Free;  Home of the Brave

Land of the Free;
Home of the Brave

While we support her courage and pray for her release from jail and pray the Lord’s mighty arm will hold back more and varied secular attacks against Christ’s Church and God’s revealed truths, we still wonder if Ms Davis has been justly jailed.

 Josh Israel of ThinkProgress blogged: “Former California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina: On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Fiorina urged Davis to follow the law or resign: “While I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case; this woman now needs to make a decision that’s [about] conscience: Is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as a government employee?”
So, at least one Candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination does not support Davis’ stand to say no and keep her job!
But is what has happened to Kim Davis the result of civil disobedience; the kind of civil disobedience taught by Ghandi and King?
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee would say no.  Kim Davis has broken no law.  She is a victim of Judicial Tyranny.
See Huckabee’s interview by Stephanopolous.
May God bless and encourage Kim Davis and may God deliver and rescue the United States of America!

56 Responses to “Did Kim Davis Break the Law?”

  1. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    What a great line in a FIRST THINGS article:
    “There might be a clever Jesuit who can convince us that her signature on same-sex marriage licenses should not have troubled her conscience.”

    Yet, we know that Kim Davis refuses to violate her Christian formed conscience.

    See the article here:

  2. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    The Kim Davis case gets complicated. Read about it here:

    AND, I just realized an error in my original post. Kim Davis refused to issue licenses for any marriages: heterosexual or homosexual.

    In any event the aforementioned article linked at the Washington Post helps readers see whether religion does excuse an employee from doing part of the job.


  3. avatar bob says:

    Can anyone tell me what law she broke ?

  4. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Governor Huckabee asserts Kim Davis broke no law.

  5. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Monseignor Pope reminds readers the USCCB calls the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision an immoral one. Therefore, Kim Davis is rightfully disobeying an unjust law pursuant to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    Read this blogger priest’s thoughts here:

  6. avatar ROBERT says:

    I have no sympathy for this woman. She was elected to do a job and is paid for it [and probably still getting paid] and I’m sure she had to pledge an oath of office to defend, uphold, etc. laws of her state and the USA. If you have a moral conscience then quit and find another job. Opinion is one thing, the LAW is another. She broke the law and has to account for it. The USCCB condemnation of the court’s decision is nice, but is going no place!

  7. avatar II Cor 2.11 says:

    Robert – Please note: the law was changed AFTER she took the oath of office. The greater message (the meta-message) is that Christians should go away and never utter their opinions in public especially if they hold elected office. Reference and example: John F Kennedy in 1960: “I will never let my Catholic faith interfere with my political office.”

  8. avatar Nerina says:

    Robert, would you say the same about our president who refused to defend DOMA when it was the law of the land? Could the marriage licenses not be offered by someone else in the clerk’s office? Do you think doctors should be forced, against their will, to participate in abortion or euthanasia? I actually disagree with candidate Fiorina who I think has made few mistakes thus far in her public proclamations because what her stand ultimately says is that people of conscience cannot work in government. That is a dangerous precedent to set, I think.

  9. avatar Diane Harris says:

    I wanted to say that but Nerina said in first. Amen.

  10. avatar ROBERT says:

    A license is a mandated right. I guess that if you didn’t like hunters then you wouldn’t issue a hunting license. How about a divorced Catholic who never received an annulment? Should a CLERK deny a marraige license? If the law changed then you’d have to follow it. Keep politicians out of this. All they want is a vote. A doctor has a choice a CLERK does not. A CLERK has no choice other than to follow the law and that includes new ones when in office. One should go into more info on this as she directed deputies not to issue licenses to anyone. Nice to make a statement, but don’t use Jesus!

  11. avatar Nerina says:

    Robert. First of all, you didn’t actually answer my questions. Second of all, you were the one to bring politics into the discussion by noting that she is an elected official. Third, of all, what Kim Davis did is in no way parallel to saying she doesn’t like a group of people. She is taking a moral stand about a certain practice. Don’t try to trivialize it with a ridiculous comparison to hunters. And regarding doctors, you say they have a choice. Well, look North, Robert. In Canada those choices are being limited more and more each day. If a doctor objects to euthanasia, he or she must refer a patient to another provider who will offer the service. MUST. Now you may think that an acceptable accommodation, but why should someone have to be complicit in a morally objectionable act?

    I have a daughter who is currently in college and is very interested in medical school. But she worries that she’ll be required to learn abortion procedures and this is a serious moral dilemma for her. It seems that people with your view would say, “too bad, you want to be a doctor then you have to be willing to do abortions since they’re a valid medical procedure.” I want, and thought, we lived in a country where a person who doesn’t want to violate his or her conscience, won’t be forced to. It will be an awful day when talented people are turned away from professions – especially the medical profession which is going to experience some extreme shortages in the coming years – because they can’t follow their conscience.

  12. avatar Nerina says:

    And, who, exactly, is “using” Jesus?

  13. avatar ROBERT says:

    Nerina: You best READ what you have posted! “Quod scripsi, scripsi.”

  14. avatar Nerina says:

    Okay, Robert. I give up. I don’t know what saying “What I have written, I have written” is supposed to mean in this context. Are you Pilate? Am I? Is this an insult? Again, you don’t really answer any questions, but try to be cute.

    And honestly, I have mixed emotions about this particular case though I am very supportive of conscience protection. I think part of the problem is that Kim Davis isn’t the best example of conscience, but she IS taking a stand surely knowing that the gay activists would come down on her hard. It may start here, with this clerk, but it won’t end here. Christian’s will have no conscience protections in the public square when all is said and done.

  15. avatar ROBERT says:

    Nerina, You have answered your own questions – mixed emotions not thought! CANADA, give me a break.

  16. avatar Hopefull says:

    Remember the difference Rosa Parks made by refusing to give up her seat, even though it was the law.

  17. avatar ROBERT says:

    This woman is NO Rosa Parks. STOP mixing up the issue. If you READ the court order, her continuance will result in further JAIL time. Get your info correct! And…I don’t think the “marriage” decision of the SCOTA is correct, I have to follow it as a citizen and as a public official. Protest all you want., but you will not over come it. Look back on the abortion issue. The COURT rules. If you don’t like it, protest or move to another country.

  18. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Robert, there is something about “the tone” of your comments that Is not conducive to a fruitful discussion. Moreover, an abrasive insensitivity to genuine moral dilemmas comes across as “having an attitude”.

    Frankly, your comments’ content isn’t always apt nor did you ever answer Nerina’s question about the chief executive and his former responsibility to enforce DOMA. By the way, the original point of the post, the Hukabee interview and Bob’s question is that the Judiciary does not make law and in fact there is the constitutional question as to whether or not there is a valid law at all.

  19. avatar ROBERT says:

    Zarcone: You as a “know-it-all” have now entered into psychology of me and others who have the same opinion. Let me know what your credentials are. Are you a constitutional lawyer too? You also sound like a true “liberal” politico to me.
    Unfortunately, you started your post as incorrect and had to make changes to the original post. Before you CF POST again, get ALL of the facts of the case. You seem to be lacking this here as in other and have a tendency to “jump the gun”.
    I could care less of any politicos like Huckabee making statements that are questionable or untrue. Huckabee is not a lawyer [Baptist minister] and he just wants “votes’. I will say he is a good man and has good intentions as I’m sure you are too and me too.
    The Supreme Court of the US made a decision on June 26,2015 and that decision is now LAW. I suggest that you research this as it is a simple as the “abortion” ruling. Maybe you think that it is not LAW. Unfortunately, it is LAW. Read the Constitution and it’s history. While the congress is supposed to make law, the court can over ride this.
    I am one who is insulted by the court’s decision on “gay marriage” and DO NOT agree with it, but we do live in a wonderful country that allows debate. Unfortunately, this lone CLERK wants to make this “her” issue since she has found “Jesus”. Why did she STOP ALL marriage licenses? Maybe, with all of her marriages, she should have had “guidence” of a past cleck who practiced psychology as you have and denied her any license.
    I trust your request for a response to the question is above.
    I still would like to have a response on a CLERK refusing to give a marriage license to a catholic who is divorced without an annulment! As for me introducing politics, READ all of the above posts.
    Protest all you want, but you will get nothing – just look at the abortion LAW!
    Sorry for the early morning post, but I have to drive a bus!
    PS: The CANADIAN thing really is NOT the USA. A complete wate of thinking.

  20. avatar ROBERT says:

    On the PS: word shuold be “waste”. Sorry.
    CF how about a spell check? …maybe there is one I don’t know?

  21. avatar ROBERT says:

    Zarcone: On the DOMA statement.[I forgot to address this.] I have NO idea why it was not enforced by any President in office currently or in the past. Maybe you should ask the WH?
    Unfortunately, under the current “kingdom” nothing with any “moral character” is enforced. And further, it’s all about political votes. Our country has gone into the “sewer” and that’s sanitary and storm!
    Time for term limits and the end of those who “buy” votes. Not to mention Supreme Court Justices!
    Maybe all catholics should work on this along with CF to bring this about. I would hope that this could be done? Just think, in our diocese, only 24% of registered catholics attend weekly! 50 years of the lack of Catholic knowledge has followed the sewers. And thank you RSM’s and SSJ’s + for your past service, but your current one is a great part of the problem.
    If anyone has a good answer, post it.

  22. avatar militia says:

    The above is another LifeSite News story: “Why Kim Davis could not have resigned (ignore “should” in the caption — “could is the headline of the article.

    I was also really impressed by a related article:

    In the article, Rabbi Levin states: “On a theological basis, I am absolutely jealous of this woman, every minute she sits in prison to honor God’s name she obtains an immense heavenly reward…” He continued: ““Kim Davis is giving us, the entire country, another opportunity to make a reckoning of what is happening here.” What’s happening, he said is “homo-fascist bullying.” He added, “This just has to be called out for what it is.”

  23. avatar ROBERT says:

    militia: THE LAW IS WHAT IT IS! Maybe you can answer my question since no one has? What would she do if she had a non-annulled catholic asking for a marriage license?

  24. avatar christian says:

    ROBERT – I think obtaining a marriage license is significantly different than obtaining a hunting license (regarding your posted comment of Sept. 9th, 2015 at 11:27 A.M.). You are not required (as in many states) to take blood tests for Hepatitis B, venereal disease, rubella, and possibly genetic testing for sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease, and receive printed literature on HIV AND AIDS to be able get a hunting license. The same is true for obtaining a fishing license.

    A hunting and fishing license involves one individual, with regulations for that individual’s use in regard to game and season.

    A driver’s license involves one individual, with classification, regulations, and restrictions for that individual’s use for private automobile or commercial vehicle on the road.

    A marriage license involves two people and a situation which is not intended to expire as other licenses do, but last more than a season, a year, or years. The intimate union of those two people will affect society as a whole. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. If they are blessed with children – how they raise their children with the irreplaceable guidance and nurturing of both a mother and father will determine the health and future of our society.

    Robert -you stated “A license is a mandated right.”

    A lot of people confuse a right with a privilege. The problem is that so many people insist on having their wants, their rights met, even if is not in their best interest or in the best interest of others.

    HUNTING – Not every person should be allowed to hunt. What if they are not capable of handling a gun safely? What if they are a violent person and subject to act on impulse? What if they have poor judgment and shoot at anything they see rustle in the bushes? HUNTING AND A HUNTING LICENSE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT’S A PRIVILEGE!

    DRIVING – Not every person should be allowed to drive. There are people of different age groups -young, middle-aged, and old, who have poor driving skills. Some of them drive recklessly. Some of them have poor depth perception. Some of them have poor eyesight. Some of them lack the required concentration, coordination, and/or fast reflex to safely drive a vehicle.
    Those with an alcohol problem /or a drug problem shouldn’t be driving.(If caught, their license is suspended or revoked. There are consequences for reckless driving and speeding if caught also. Local Police can also request the State take a driver’s license away permanently from a driver due to incompetence and involvement in multiple car accidents of which they are at fault).
    Those with uncontrollable (brittle) diabetes, uncontrollable seizures, or acute or uncontrolled cardiac problems shouldn’t be driving. Medical restrictions and guidelines are given to these people.
    (We should be thankful and humble if we are able to drive competently. We also should be willing to honestly evaluate ourselves as we get older or if our health conditions change). DRIVING AND A DRIVER’S LICENSE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT’S IS A PRIVILEGE!

    MARRIAGE – A marriage is between two people who are deemed competent and responsible enough to enter into a contract and bond with one another. (I believe marriage is between a man and a woman).

    1. *There are states that deny a marriage license to a couple if one or both applicants/partners tests positive for any of the premarital blood tests. There are other states who will issue a marriage license as long as the other applicant/partner knows what disease the other has.

    2. There is an age requirement. Currently, you have to be at least 18. If you are under 18, (16 or 17), you need parental consent or judicial approval. I believe if you are 15, you need parental and judicial approval.

    3. There are cases even between a man and woman where conditions of competency and responsibility are not met to be able to obtain a marriage license.

    4. The other person has to want to marry you and you have to want to marry the other person to obtain a marriage license. It has to be consensual (at least currently). You just can’t marry anyone you want.

    5. Currently, you cannot obtain a marriage license if you or the other applicant are married to someone else.

    6. NAMBLA has been trying for many years to legalize sexual relations between a male adult and a male minor (man and boy). Currently, this is illegal. There are adult males who want to have sexual relations with a minor female. Again, this is illegal. (I hope the legalization of pedophilia never happens). Currently, an adult cannot obtain a marriage license with a child.

    6. There are some people pushing for polygamy to be legalized. (See 5.)
    a. Usually, it is one man who wants multiple wives.
    b. There are those who want to have partners of both genders. I.e. – want to be married to both a male and a female.
    c. Some do not specify on the number or the gender of partners.

    So far, a marriage contract is limited to 2 people.


    The LBGT Lobby has been at work in public schools (also found out to be at various parochial schools in exchange for monetary donations) and in colleges and universities. For years, a message has been taught among middle school -high school students, and even elementary school students, that it is an accepted and normal to have same sex attraction preference and a different gender identification, and to act on it. Students who are heterosexual and okay with their gender identity have been conditioned into thinking that it is wrong and hateful not to accept the active lifestyles of the LBGT Community, including same-sex arrangements, same-sex marriage, transvestism, and gender reassignment.

    Compassion and Christian Love should be shown to those with these afflictions.
    But tears ago, these individuals with same sex attraction, transgender fascination, and gender confusion were deemed disordered in the mental health and medical community, and also in society at large.

    Now these disordered individuals have been given access to a marriage license and contract previously reserved for two ordered individuals. And this contract between two disordered individuals is deemed normal.

  25. avatar ROBERT says:

    christian: I agree with all of your thoughts.
    I still hold my ground that a public official MUST follow the LAW period.

  26. avatar christian says:

    Correction for typo in my posted comment above:

    “Compassion and Christian Love should be shown to those with these afflictions. But years ago, these individuals with same sex attraction, transgender fascination, and gender confusion were deemed disordered in the mental health and medical community, and also in society at large.
    Now these disordered individuals have been given access to a marriage license and contract previously reserved for two ordered individuals. And this contract between two disordered individuals is deemed normal.”

    Same-Sex Marriage is not even a law brought about by legislation in the ordinary process, but by judiciary invention.

    Robert is misinformed and naive if he thinks a doctor is an independent practitioner with the ultimate authority, and so, always has a choice of what they want to do at a particular healthcare institution or in a particular state or country.

  27. avatar ROBERT says:

    christian: Thank you.
    As I stated above, there is a LAW on the books and you must observe it as a public official. And again, please answer my question for catholicsand all of CF.
    I find it very trubling that you would turn to mental heath issues of the PAST in this process of trying to understand the new LAW. Have you ever considered that the CLERK in this matter may have some same type issues NOW?
    I am NOT naive nor misinformed.
    Define for me and all CF readers what it means to be a CHRISTIAN and then go back a review what you have put to writing. You should also go to the meaning of MERCY, not by us, the lowly, but as the SUPREME BEING.

  28. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    That Christians, and especially Catholics, have been engaged in attacking, ridiculing, undermining, and, it must be said, scapegoating Kim Davis, someone, whatever real faults one may find in her tactics and character, who is actively resisting the tyranny of liberalism that is the Justice Kennedy/President Obama Regime in its programmatic attack on Christianity and the natural law, is, it must be said, scandalous.

  29. avatar christian says:

    Robert – I believe GOD has MERCY for all and I am in no way condemning those with disordered orientations. In fact, I believe that those who have same-sex attraction have a heavier burden and through it, can achieve GREAT HOLINESS by striving to PLEASE GOD through a life of CELIBACY, PRAYER, and SERVICE to others.

    There are people in other situations which are also called to live lives of CELIBACY, PRAYER, and SERVICE to others. Those who remain single. Those who are separated or divorced (when a marriage has not been deemed null). Those who remain in a marriage for the sake of the family where the relationship of the married couple is more like a friendship.

    There are also people born with the misfortune of having both sexes – hermaphroditism. Babies are born with both male and female genitalia, or can have karotypes of both xx and xy chromosomes. A baby can have just male genitalia or female genitalia, but have karotypes of xx and xy chromosomes. Parents and their physician try to best judge what gender their child should be registered and raised as. Surgery is often involved to rid the baby or child of the unwanted genitalia and sexual organs. There are a lot of problems that are usually encountered by these individuals and their parents.
    I think these individuals should receive great compassion.
    People with this affliction can grow up and live with a gender identity, but often, cannot have sexual intercourse or be able to produce children.

    (In the Bible, we know there were eunuchs – males who were castrated to be able to serve their master fully -usually to be able to guard women’s quarters. Eunuchs were called to live a life of celibacy, prayer, and service and be pleasing to God.
    Castration was also done in the past to boys in boys’ choirs, to be able to continue to reach high notes. NOTE: I do not endorse or agree with the practice of castration).

    Some people are not suitable for marriage because they do not have the maturity, responsibility, and the level of commitment a marriage takes. If they were honest with themselves or thought of others, they wouldn’t enter into a marriage contract. I do not believe sexual intercourse should occur outside of marriage, so I believe these individuals should remain celibate.

    ROBERT – I am stating all this because you are the one who has mentioned GOD and MERCY in your last post.

    Marriage has always been an institution ordained by GOD for the betterment of society and the survival of the human race by producing offspring and raising those children in a family setting with both parents, mother and father.

    The problem with different groups of people nowadays, is that they are not thinking of others or the betterment of society, or long-term commitment or ramifications. It’s all about them and their wants, and fulfilling their wants.

  30. avatar annonymouse says:

    A doctor may not practice medicine unless licensed by his or her state. It is certainly plausible that a state may pass a law requiring its physicians to be available to perform abortions, at the risk of his or her medical license. Further, many states have now passed laws proscribing counselors from providing healing services to those with same sex attraction who wish to be healed of that attraction, at the risk of their state licenses to provide counseling services. So I agree with Christian that Robert is naive and misinformed if he believes that medical and other professionals have much autonomy in the face of a state (or federal government) willing to impose its newfound definitions and morality.

    As to your question, Robert, about a not-annulled marriage – you are mixing apples and oranges. Annulment pertains ONLY to a Catholic sacramental marriage. The issue at hand is the definition of marriage across all faiths and civilly as well. The definition has, for millennia, been one man and one woman. So to deny a couple (Catholic or not) a civil marriage license because they have not had a previous marriage annulled is not the same thing as to deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple who, by the very definition of marriage in any context (religious or civil) CANNOT marry each other.

    Finally, Robert, you keep mentioning the “LAW on the books” that Ms. Davis is obliged to follow. Which law might that be? If you’re referring to a Supreme Court decision that overturned the law in 39 or so states, that is not a “law;” it’s a decision. Now if the Supreme Court deems marriage to anyone a “right,” and one in good conscience objects to that decision, why cannot that person be allowed to exercise her or his conscience so long as a particular homosexual couple can still easily find someone to record their “marriage?”

  31. avatar annonymouse says:

    A doctor may not practice medicine unless licensed by his or her state. It is certainly plausible that a state may pass a law requiring its physicians to be available to perform abortions, at the risk of his or her medical license. Many states have now passed laws proscribing counselors from providing healing services to those with same sex attraction who wish to be healed of that attraction, at the risk of their state licenses to provide counseling services. So I agree with Christian that Robert is naive and misinformed if he believes that medical and other professionals have much autonomy in the face of a state (or federal government) willing to impose its newfound definitions and morality.

    As to your question, Robert, about a not-annulled marriage – you are mixing apples and oranges. Annulment pertains ONLY to a Catholic sacramental marriage. The issue at hand is the definition of marriage across all faiths and civilly as well. The definition has, for millennia, been one man and one woman. So to deny a couple (Catholic or not) a civil marriage license because they have not had a previous marriage annulled is not the same thing as to deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple who, by the very definition of marriage in any context (religious or civil) CANNOT marry each other. I hope you can see how one might in good conscience have no problem issuing a license to a couple not annulled, since that only applies to Catholic sacramental marriage, and have a serious problem issuing a license to a same-sex couple since to do so is to deny the very definition of marriage.

    Finally, Robert, you keep mentioning the “LAW on the books” that Ms. Davis is obliged to follow. Which law might that be? If you’re referring to a Supreme Court decision that overturned the law in 39 or so states, that is not a “law;” it’s a decision. Now if the Supreme Court deems marriage to anyone a “right,” and one in good conscience objects to that decision, why cannot that person be allowed to exercise her or his conscience so long as a particular homosexual couple can still easily find someone to record their “marriage?”

  32. avatar ROBERT says:

    christian and others: Thank you for your comments!The LAW is the LAW! How many times do I have to say it. And, don’t tell me that a court decision by the US Supreme Court isn’t law.
    Please responds to my original question – which no one has REALLY done! The CLERK should understand ALL religions before junping on the Jesus train.
    I also find that you and others know more about marriage than the our Tribunal as well as Archdiocese of NY.
    I would caution you on your previous posts that you a placing yourself as “hateful” and this could cause you and others great consequence.

  33. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Thank you, Brother Ben, for posting the link to Dr. Thaddeus Kosinski’s awesome article which if read thoroughly (admittedly I need to re-read it a few times) answers the question DID KIM DAVIS BREAK THE LAW?

    Beloved CF readers and commentators: be challenged to read the aforementioned article which can be accessed at the link posted by Ben Anderson today 9/11 at 9:01 am.

    What a great line in the article which in part reads: “…’She should have resigned’ is the new shibboleth.”

    Truly, not to read Kosinski’s article is to deprive oneself of a significant contribution to understanding the traditional marriage/same-sex marriage/SCOTUS/rule of law/religious liberty/natural law/civil morality ISSUES which are affecting profoundly all of our lives.

  34. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Kozinski has posted on line another significant article regarding the Bishops’ use of “religious liberty” to combat the HHS mandate and the SCOTUS decision. Be prepared for thinking that might change our own.

    Once again, this is a piece by Dr. Thaddeus Kozinski worth our time and effort.


  35. avatar Nerina says:

    Oh, for Pete’s sake, Robert, I’ll answer your question about the non-annulled, divorced Catholic presenting him or herself for a marriage license: How in the world would the clerk KNOW that? When a man and a man present or a woman and a woman, it is obvious. I would think your question’s answer is obvious unless there is some section on the application that says “are you a divorced, non-annulled Catholic?” As an aside, the hypocrisy you display by coming here and exhorting us to mercy and charity when you display so little of it yourself is breathtaking.

  36. avatar Hopefull says:

    To me the question isn’t “Did Kim Davis break the law?” Rather it is “What is Jesus’ reaction to Kim Davis?” My guess is that He loves her, that He is proud of her standing up for Him, and that He is working good stuff in her life. Just a guess.

  37. avatar christian says:

    “What fills the vacuum when logos is banned from the public square and as the foundation of law is arbitrary human will, the human will of ruling-class elites masking as “public reason”, “the will of the people” or the “rule of law.” What we have is disordered, revolutionary, and logos-averse technocrats and professional liars ruling for their own self-serving desires and the desires of the true rulers in the Deep State, all of which falls under the definition that Aristotle gives of tyranny in his Politics.” -Dr. Thaddeus Kozinski from Catholic World Report – “Kim Davis and the Law of the Land”

    Thank you Ben for posting this. Dominick- I have not read the article you have posted from this theologian. Thanks for posting that article – and THANK YOU for coming up with this Cleansing Fire post about Kim Davis and her act of civil disobedience.

    I am reminded of the quote of Henry David Thoreau from “On Civil Disobedience” – “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” Henry David Thoreau felt it was the duty of a citizen to actively reject an unjust ruling or law of a government.

  38. avatar christian says:

    [5] “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.”
    – Henry David Thoreau -“on Civil Disobedience”

    I must admit that I have not read “On Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau since the summer following my Sophomore year in High School, where I was allowed to take Senior English. I chose to do my Senior paper on Henry David Thoreau’s writings and included Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience.” I must say, his writings have left a lasting impact. Because it had been so long since I had read “On Civil Disobedience”, I decided to revisit it online. I will post the link to it below.

  39. avatar christian says:

    I do not understand ROBERT’s purported stand against same-sex marriage, yet his insistence that Kim Davis issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it is the “LAW,” and then his further accusation of Cleansing Fire posters’ comments as “hateful”, not reflecting “MERCY” or what it is to be “CHRISTIAN.”

    I do not know who ROBERT is and obviously don’t know him.

    But one fact which has not been addressed is, there are active homosexuals who do not endorse or accept “same sex marriage.” There are some varying opinions, but a common one is that marriage was a way to safeguard the family unit, to provide for continuity for a relationship between a man and a woman and also for the continuity for humankind. Marriage also provides safeguards for the woman while producing offspring and providing for children and her husband.

    From the BBC News, Washington by By Tom Geoghegan
    “Gay People Against Gay Marriage”

    Legba Carrefour, who describes himself as “radical queer”, calls it a “destructive way of life” that produces broken families.

    “We are only one or two generations away from children coming from gay marriage that are also from broken homes,” he says.

  40. avatar christian says:

    militia – Thanks so much for posting those links to excellent articles. I found both of them abounding in truth and great inspiration. If anyone has not read those articles militia posted on Sept. 10th, I would encourage them to.

    A Note: After “Gay People Against Gay Marriage” (From BBC News, Washington, by Tom Geoghegan), both of those lines should have quotations -double quotations for the last line – because it is the written words of Tom Geoghegan.

  41. avatar true faith says:

    I have to applaud both Dominick Anthony Zarcone and Christian for their excellent research and comments on the matter of same sex marriage. I would like to approach this recent Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell versus Hodges which is a back door legislation at best to circumvent the authority of the United States Congress in legally amending the Constitution of the United States which is derived from Article V of the Constitution.

    The Constitution of the United States was originally created on September 17, 1787 ( it’s birthday is coming up) at Philadelphia Convention and signed by 39 of the 55 delegates. It was ratified on June 21,1788. The United States Constitution was intended to be the Supreme Law of the United States of America. The Constitution originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. The first three articles entrench the DOCTRINE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concerts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the Thirteen States to ratify it.

    The framers understood that there would arise changes in society and culture that would necessitate changes to the Constitution and Law reflecting this. They provided for this by outlining the process of proposing an amendment to the Constitution and ratifying it, making it an addition to the Constitution by public record and establishing it into law. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it give the Supreme Court the right to make an amendment or to make federal law. The Supreme Court only has the power to rule on cases according to constitutional laws which are already present in the U.S. Constitution according to the Doctrine of Stare Decisis which means that it must make it’s rulings according to use of Precedent which provides predictability, stability, fairness and efficiency. The use of Precedent is cited as stabilizing the law and provides society with the expectation that it will remain coherent as long as the Precedent is in effect.

    How can the Supreme Court make a ruling in favor of same sex marriage when there is absolutely no legal Precedent for it according to federal law? The ruling of Obergefell versus Hodges was based erroneously on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which was adopted on July 9,1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments which addressed citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. It is truly a pity that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t put the same effort into upholding the rights of black slaves and the descendants of these black slaves outlined in Amendment Fourteen during the past 100 plus years. Instead, they have put great effort into misinterpreting the 14th Amendment and expanding it from its original intention into making new laws 1.Roe versus Wade in favor of legal abortion in 1973 and 2. Obergefell versus Hodges in favor of same sex marriage as a federal constitutional right on June 26, 2015 by a narrow vote of 5 to 4.

    Yet, in 1971, The Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker vs. Nelson, ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples does not violate provisions of the United States Constitution. Baker vs. Nelson should serve as a precedent in the United States Supreme Court’s ruling as there is still no 28th Amendment to the Constitution which extends the definition of marriage beyond the legal union of one man to one woman at one time, to legal unions of same sex couples and legal unions involving multiple partners at one time.

  42. avatar raymondfrice says:


    Now that you have been challenged by the Cleansing Fire fire, welcome and be prepared for more Fahrenheit 451.

    Just in case you might need a spiritual break from the spiritual kamikaze, you might want to read about Franz Jagerstatter who faced a similar situation as Ms Davis.

    Peace 🙂

  43. avatar christian says:

    true faith – Excellent post/comments explaining judicial abuse of the United States Supreme Court and their violation of the United States Constitution in trying to fabricate laws.

    raymondfrice – Franz Jagerstatter is an excellent example, and a must read.

    Robert should also read of The White Rose Society, whose members are an excellent example.
    There is a book called “A Noble Treason” written by Richard Hanzer about Sophie Scholl and the White Rose Movements.

  44. avatar christian says:

    Correction: “A Noble Treason” written by Richard Hanzer about Sophia Scholl and the White Rose Movement.

    Again, I second raymondfrice’s suggestion that Robert should investigate/research Franz Jagerstatter, a must read. He faced a similar situation as Kim Davis.

  45. avatar II Cor 2.11 says:

    Does anyone recall the three goods of marriage? (St Augustine, 354 – 430) There is an excellent homily available in which Fr Richard Bradford briefly traces the Church’s teaching of these goods up through 1930 when Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical Casti connubii. His homily appeared in Contra Mundum, the newsletter of The Congregation of St Athanasius located near Boston, MA. I would send a link to the this newsletter, but unfortunately I don’t know how to. I think it can be found at September 2015.
    This is one of the first Anglican Usage congregations.

  46. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Franz Jagerstatter is a hero, martyr and Blessed!

    Because of his Catholic faith in the Son of God, our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, this Austrian family man said NO to the evil Nazi regime. it cost him his life; but not his soul.

    Thanks, raymondfrice, for reminding me of this faithful layman whose wife, bishop, and friends encouraged him to say yes to no avail.ägerstätter

  47. avatar raymondfrice says:

    For you if you have time.

  48. avatar tjkozinski says:

    I appreciate the favorable mention of my article. Keep up the good work.

  49. avatar christian says:

    When I think of the great martyr Franz Jagerstatter, it makes me think of the words of St. Athanasius who fought the Arian heresy which refuted the Divinity of Christ at Ecumenical Council of Nicea. When he was told “The world is against you,” he responded, “If the world is against me, then I am against the world.”

    One of the members of the White Rose Society, Movement, Alexander Schmorell, became an Orthodox Christian saint after his martyrdom.

    The White Rose Society/Movement attempted to raise the consciousness of the German people by secretly composing and printing pamphlets, and distributing them throughout Germany. In their pamphlet, they additionally asked the German people to help sabotage Hitler’s war movement.

    The White Rose Society was made up of young people, mostly students from the University of Munich, assisted by a University of Munich professor. It has been stated that the symbol of the White Rose was picked because it represents purity and innocence in the face of evil.

    They did their non-violent fight; civil disobedience and act of treason against tyranny and evil, although they knew it would cost them their life.

    The members of the White Rose Society were captured, imprisoned, sentenced to death by beheading, and they all went courageously to their martyrdom. Those involved were from different religious backgrounds. Most of them were devout Christians; Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox. One of the students was baptized Catholic before he went to his martyrdom.

    After members of the White Rose Society/movement were captured, their pamphlet no. 6 was smuggled out of the country to Switzerland, then to the U.K. Thousands upon thousands of pamphlets were printed, renamed “The Manifesto of the Students of Munich,” out of honor for those martyrs, and dropped over Germany by allied planes.

  50. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Christian, thank you very much for retelling the story of the White Rose Society.

    It reminds us that we are called to give witness to that which is good, beautiful and true.

    My greatest fear is when challenged I might strive to save my life and thus lose it.

    What encourages and helps me remember that perfect love casts out fear is the Hope that if called to witness by losing my life and thus saving it, the love, grace and power of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, will equip and empower those called to shed blood for Jesus’ sake and in His Name. Deo Gratias!

    Until then, let us remember to pray for that grace and power so if called to witness and be martyred we will trust Our Loving Heavenly Father Who Is Trustworthy To Provide What We Need To Obey.

  51. avatar Richard Thomas says:


    There was a law on the books in England. Everyone had to sign the law of Henry Viii stating his marriage to Anne Bolyn was legal. Thomas Moore did not sigh it. He was martyred.

    On his way to the gallows he said: I am the kings servant but God’s first. God does come before the state. EVERY time.

  52. avatar christian says:

    AMEN to that, Brother Dominick!

  53. avatar christian says:

    As you know, the White House celebrated the June 26th, 2015 Supreme Court’s decision to make “same sex marriage” legal in all 50 states of the United States. The Democratic Party has endorsed the LBGT Movement and Abortion.

    President Obama has purposely invited prominent people who are against the Catholic Church on many of its positions to greet Pope Francis and speak with him. Among these guests, there is good representation from both the LBGT Movement and the Pro-choice Movement (Abortion). It appears Pope Francis is stepping into a “spiritual landmine” when he comes to the White House.

    I saw the article today on the Internet:

    We need to pray for Pope Francis and the holy Catholic Church. I pray the Holy Spirit empowers him to fight these oppositions with Divine Love and Truth, and with Inspired, Prudent, and Wise words in his defense of the holy Catholic Church’s teachings.

  54. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    Terry Moran, ABC News:
    Holy Father, thank you, thank you very much and thank you to the Vatican staff as well. Holy Father, you visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and we were told that you wanted to show your support for them and their case in the courts. And, Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?
    Pope Francis:
    I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscience objection. But, yes, I can say the conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’ It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the “Chanson de Roland” when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font and they had to choose between the baptismal font or the sword. They had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.

    Terry Moran, ABC News:
    Would that include government officials as well?
    Pope Francis:
    It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.

  55. avatar christian says:

    Thanks for posting this Ben!

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-