Kim Davis Freed

And so our fearless martyr, Kim Davis, is released from the federal jail to the sound of rock’n’roll, Satan’s favorite tool of evangelization.  Except that the “artists” who created the hideous tune “Eye of the Tiger” were none too pleased with the association of their song to Miss Davis, and filed a cease and desist order.  Ah well, this is what happens when Protestant “pastors” like Mike Huckabee try to make a pact with the devil.  Oh wait, he already did, when he rejected Christ’s True Catholic Church for the Protestant heresy.

In all fairness, Miss Davis might not be responsible for selecting the soundtrack, nor orchestrating the embarrassing rally that it accompanied.  However, her lawyers continue to prattle on about how terrible it is that she is being “forced to violate her conscience,” as though that were the crux of the issue.  Absent from the debate are the horrors of sodomy and the objective fact that two men cannot be married, any more than Bruce Jenner can be Caitlyn.

As humans we have the unfortunate handicap of interfacing with reality through the medium of language, and this deficiency often leads us to believe we can alter reality simply by altering the words we use to describe it.  Thus, we hear so many complaints about the “re-definition” of marriage, as though such a thing were actually possible.  But there is a reality to marriage which cannot be altered by word-smithery, an essence which belongs to it regardless of what language we apply to it.  Thus, one cannot contract a marriage, nor enter into the married state, if one of the parties is deceased.  It simply cannot be done, and even if a law were passed “re-defining” marriage to allow, to coin a term, necrogamy, this law would be a farce.

Larry and Steve, or Kim and Donna, are fundamentally sexually incompatible.  They cannot produce children, ever, by their very natures.  This is totally different from marriage between a man and a woman when one party is sterile;  this is a deficiency in the nature of the sterile party, not essential to it.  Whereas a woman is essentially incompatible of producing off spring with another woman.  As I often say, the mere fact that I even need to explain such things shows the insanity of our age.

However, our age is poisoned with nominalism and existentialism, the former teaching that essences aren’t real, and the later teaching that essence is real, except that existence precedes essence, which of course means that essence isn’t really real at all.  Our lack of understanding of basic metaphysics has led us to believe not that things are what they are, but that they are what we define them to be.  Hence, marriage can be re-defined.  This is why it is fundamentally flawed to say “I am opposed to the re-definition of marriage.”  Say instead, “Marriage must have a male and a female party by its nature.”  (Polygamy does not contradict the nature of marriage, by the way, since it is ordered towards procreation, but has been prohibited by civilization and God for a very long time.)

Protestants of the Bible-thumping variety (a) have little use for philosophy and (b) believe that the individual’s conscience is the measure of faith.  Because they regard Scripture to be the only infallible guide to faith, and all other sources as merely fallible, they rely on individual judgement to determine the correct Protestant sect to adhere to, and have little concern whether someone adheres to this sect or that, just so long as they agree on a handful of “fundamentals.”  Thus, we hear nothing of the objective order from them, and a lot about individual conscience.

Of course, in the post Vatican II-era, we don’t hear much about objective reality from the Catholics either.  And so, our only representative on the scene, Mr. Marco Rubio, an admitted apostate who attends Protestant or Catholic services as suit his fancy that Sunday, was thankfully barred from the pep rally, where he surely would never have stated what needs to be said.

As to Miss Davis, who knows what will happen to her?  She probably won’t be impeached in a state like Kentucky, but whatever does happen, she will likely be a mere memory in a year or so, as we march onward to our Brave New World where men are women, women are men, and to be a “husband” does not require a “wife.”

Dr. Moynihan on Miss Davis

I know absolutely nothing about Robert Moynihan, PhD, but I can’t think of a better example of the problem I illustrated in my previous article on the plight of Miss Kim Davis.  Dr. Moynihan refers to the imprisonment of Miss Davis, who refused to issue gay “marriage” licenses, as unjust.  According to the law, “she must abandon her own deeply held belief…” (Emphasis mine.)  Miss Davis “has chosen to accept arrest and jail rather than abandon her belief.” (Emphasis again mine.)  Further:  “Kim is the first of many US citizens unwilling to abandon their principles before such an unjust law.” (You probably guessed who added the emphasis.  I presume Dr. Moynihan knows Miss Davis personally, given that he referred to her by her first name.)  One assumes Dr. Moynihan did not receive his doctorate in political science, as he also states the following:  “This case is the result of a wrong and unjust law passed on June 26 by the US Supreme Court.”

As to the latter quote, we all should know that the USSC does not, in fact, pass laws.  The job of the Court is the same as any judicial institution, namely, to apply the laws passed by the legislature (and approved by the executive) to specific cases.  It is not the primary job of the judiciary, by the way, to interpret laws.  This power is a necessary corollary of the power to apply laws to specific circumstances.

That being said, look at the former quotes.  Dr. Moynihan places the entire affair into the realm of the subjective.  Miss Davis shouldn’t be forced to abandon her beliefs;  Miss Davis has her principles.  She shouldn’t be forced, in other words, to violate her own conscience.  Well, who cares what her internal belief system is?  If individual conscience is king, why should Larry the homo county clerk be forced into providing a license to two Catholics?

More gems from the doctor:  “It is important to note that in this matter even some self-described homosexuals have said they oppose homosexual ‘marriage’…”  Why?  Because children have a “right” to a mother and a father.  Well, fine enough, but why on Earth should we care what a few sodomizers think?  What possible merit does their opinion have when considering the objective evil of sodomy?  Why would he even quote such people in an article which also cites St. Thomas Aquinas?

As I stated before, county clerks should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, not because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, but because it is objectively wrong.  Marriage is a reality in the objective order of things, and as such, has certain requirements.  One of them is that both parties be living.  Another is that the parties be of the opposite sex.  A clerk should not issue these licenses because it is impossible.  The second reason is that the USSC decision is invalid and illegal.

Those are the main reasons, but if you want, here’s a bonus:  Sodomy is a revolting, unnatural, and immoral practice which should be illegal.  At least one party to this act is a victim, and no clerk should be forced to commit people to this perversion.

We will never win this fight until we are clear about our terms.

The wrong martyr: Kim Davis

It is a defect of the modern Catholic neo-conservative movement that it fits every news story into its false neo-con “narrative,” without looking or thinking more deeply about what the issues represent.  Case in point is Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has just been jailed for refusing to marry sodomites.  “Oh, she’s being jailed for being a Christian!  Oh, this is the beginning of the persecution!”  If only!

This author is well aware that a persecution is indeed beginning, but Miss Davis has never made any argument that would qualify her as a persecutee.  Miss Davis, an adherent to the false Protestant sect, is unfortunately poisoned with the Protestant notion that places individual judgement as the highest measure of reality.

Thus, her argument is as follows:  “If I marry sodomites, then I’ll be violating my beliefs, and the government can never force me to violate my religion.”  In other words, the government is forcing her to contradict her own personal belief system, and that is wrong.

However, Miss Davis is a county clerk by choice, and having assumed an office of the government she can naturally be required to perform duties that might contradict her personal conscience.  Is it the job of the clerk, for example, to determine that Suzy Q. and Billy Y. are not to be married, because they are young and immature, and show up at the clerk’s office spontaneously, without having thought it out?  Or, conversely, what about a sodomite who attends an “LGBT-friendly” (false) church, and who refuses to marry Christians?  Why is that not his right if the only standard is our own personal conscience?

Miss Davis couches her point in terms of pure subjectivity, which is absurd.  Of course she, and any other clerk in this country, should refuse to issue such licenses, but they should do so by stating why, in the objective order, such a course of action is impossible:

1.  A male and female party are required to contract a valid marriage.  This is as much a requirement as the need for both parties to be living.  This is not subject to definition or re-definition, since only a male and female party can reproduce.  Two men can no more be married than a mosquito can be a pig.
2. The United States Supreme Court acted illegally by unilaterally declaring that the Constitution says something that it does not, and that the authors of the Constitution never intended.  The justices have no right nor authority to amend the Constitution, for which a procedure is established.

If she made these arguments, she’d likely be in jail nevertheless, but at least for the right reason.  Then I’d be willing to consider her a martyr.  Meanwhile, she is just advancing the argument the subjectivity trumps objectivity, and is hence, a part of the problem.

As long as we are stuck in this rut, we will get silly articles like this CNS piece declaring her a hero.  The author asks: “What compelling reason can there be when gay activists targeting Davis can get a marriage license at any of the 129 other locations in the state?”  As if that’s a great thing?!  Subjectivity strikes again!  Hey, Miss Davis might not be issuing any licenses, but that’s up to her!  Just go to a clerk who’s down with sodomy and you’re fine!

No, once again, a male and a female party are required for marriage to be marriage.  And the USSC cannot amend the Constitution.  Let’s fight the right battle here.