• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Kim Davis not exactly the poster girl for Godly marriage...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scarlett O.

Moderator
Moderator
Kim Davis, the county clerk who will not give out marriage licenses to gay couple because she believes their unions to be immoral and against God's plan for marriage isn't exactly the person we as Christians should emulate.

She says that she is afraid that she will go to hell if she issues these licenses.

She talks the talk, but hasn't walked the walk.

She has been married four times. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing husband #1 and they were husband #3's biological children, but husband #2 was the man who adopted them as his own.

She's been married twice to her current husband. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...lerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times

Did you follow that?

Her hypocrisy, in my opinion, is giving the church and Christians a black eye and a blackened reputation.

She was elected as a secular official so she IS the government. It's her secular job to issue secular licenses for a secular government's recognition of what they deem as a secular union. What makes a marriage holy is something between a man and a woman and God - not the government and not a license. The government does not recognize the Biblical definition of marriage.

She is paid to give a piece of paper to a couple showing that the government approves of their union. Her opinion is moot. This is not like the baker who is a private citizen exercising his right to practice his art and craft and express it in whatever manner he chooses. He can absolutely refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

She is not a private citizen issuing government marriage licenses. She is an arm of the government - she IS the government.

She should step down or do the secular job. Her personal testimony of her four marriages, including adultery, is causing more harm than her private convictions about gay people.

My convictions are her convictions. The thought of gay marriage being condoned by my government makes me sad, sick, and angry. But her obstinance in light of her OWN mockery of marriage has to be entered into the equation.
 
Last edited:

just-want-peace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Can't help but think of Paul Harvey who used to tell --"The rest of the story!"

Like just about everything, reacting before having sufficient knowledge.

(Guilty as charged!!!!!!!!!):(
 

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
I disagree with her about refusing. She should either do what the court ordered or resign.

But, you might want to read further into her background

From US News and World report, all of these were before her conversion 4 years ago.

Like I said, I think she should do what SCOTUS has decreed (wrongly) or resign. But before we judge her, we ought to have all the details.

A pastor in Texas (Bart Barber) wrote "So, here's a more accurate headline: "Woman Did Not Follow Christianity Before She Became a Christian! (Gasp!)"
 

go2church

Active Member
Site Supporter
Thrilled by her conversion, disappointed with her immaturity, but what really did anyone expect from a new Christian - guess unless a sheet drops from the sky, she is committed to going to jail.
 

Scarlett O.

Moderator
Moderator
I disagree with her about refusing. She should either do what the court ordered or resign.

But, you might want to read further into her background

From US News and World report, all of these were before her conversion 4 years ago.

Like I said, I think she should do what SCOTUS has decreed (wrongly) or resign. But before we judge her, we ought to have all the details.

A pastor in Texas (Bart Barber) wrote "So, here's a more accurate headline: "Woman Did Not Follow Christianity Before She Became a Christian! (Gasp!)"

That doesn't matter to me. Why? Because the lost world won't understand the distinction. We can become saved and our pasts don't condemn us in God's eyes anymore, but the consequences of our sins follow us sometimes all of our days.

The consequences of her sinful life and mockery of marriage before she was saved are that the world just has more disdain for the church and Christians now than before we knew about her refusal to comply with the unGodly law.

She should have called a press conference, explained her religious beliefs about homosexual marriage, and publicly called it for what it is while publicly resigning so she wouldn't have to live against her convictions AND because her past, in the eyes of the lost and dying world mark her as a hypcrite.

There is no therefore no condemnation in Christ.

There will always be consequences that we must pay. We never sin in a vacuum and our sins cause more damage than we could imagine. The devil, the accuser of the brethren, loves it when these things become public.
 
Last edited:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I disagree with her about refusing. She should either do what the court ordered or resign.

But, you might want to read further into her background

From US News and World report, all of these were before her conversion 4 years ago.

Like I said, I think she should do what SCOTUS has decreed (wrongly) or resign. But before we judge her, we ought to have all the details.

A pastor in Texas (Bart Barber) wrote "So, here's a more accurate headline: "Woman Did Not Follow Christianity Before She Became a Christian! (Gasp!)"

GOOD COMMENTARY!:thumbsup:
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Scarlett O said:
She was elected as a secular official so she IS the government. It's her secular job to issue secular licenses for a secular government's recognition of what they deem as a secular union.

Except that the secular state of Kentucky doesn't recognize the homosexual redefinition of marriage.

She is paid to give a piece of paper to a couple showing that the government approves of their union.

When did Kentucky legalize the homosexual redefinition of marriage?

She is not a private citizen issuing government marriage licenses. She is an arm of the government - she IS the government.

Then shouldn't her decision be guided by the fact that the government of Kentucky, via the state legislature, does not recognize the homosexual redefinition of marriage?

She should step down or do the secular job.

The secular job of giving marriage licenses to people the state does not consider valid candidates for marriage?
 

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
That doesn't matter to me. Why? Because the lost world won't understand the distinction. We can become saved and our pasts don't condemn us in God's eyes anymore, but the consequences of our sins follow us sometimes all of our days.

The consequences of her sinful life and mockery of marriage before she was saved are that the world just has more disdain for the church and Christians now than before we knew about her refusal to comply with the unGodly law.

She should have called a press conference, explained her religious beliefs about homosexual marriage, and publicly called it for what it is while publicly resigning so she wouldn't have to live against her convictions AND because her past, in the eyes of the lost and dying world mark her as a hypcrite.

There is no therefore no condemnation in Christ.

There will always be consequences that we must pay. We never sin in a vacuum and our sins cause more damage than we could imagine. The devil, the accuser of the brethren, loves it when these things become public.

I absolutely agree that the world will not note the difference. But we are not the world and we ought to be committed to truth not just that she is not the model of pre-Christian morality.

Maybe you were saved as a child. But I wasn't. I don't want believers to judge me on the basis of what I did and what I was like in my Before Christ days.
 

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
Yes, comrade! We must follow our federal masters!

Dude, you know nothing about me. But if I am hired to do a job and cannot in good conscience do it, then I have to quit or get fired. Maybe she wants to be fired to make a statement. But she has been ordered to do the job, hired to do the job, paid to do the job and now won't do the job.
 

Zenas

Active Member
Scarlett O. has it right. What Mrs. Davis is doing is no different from a judge who refuses to grant divorces because he believes divorce is against God's will; or a judge who refuses to sign a death penalty judgment because he is opposed to the death penalty; or a President who refuses to use military force to defend the country because he believes killing is wrong; or a state attorney general who refuses to defend the state's constitutional declaration that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The problem is that Mrs. Davis doesn't want her sincerely held beliefs to interfere with her high paying public job.
 

Scarlett O.

Moderator
Moderator
I'm not condemning her. And I don't want people to judge me based on my actions before I was saved AND some of my actions SINCE being saved.

She should have acknowledged this when defying the law and creating a rift between her and those she COULD have been a testimony to.

It's undoable now. She can't explain the grace of God now and appear credible in the eyes of those who need the grace of God the most.
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dude, you know nothing about me.

No, but I did read your post.

But if I am hired to do a job and cannot in good conscience do it, then I have to quit or get fired. Maybe she wants to be fired to make a statement. But she has been ordered to do the job, hired to do the job, paid to do the job and now won't do the job.

Since when is her job to circumvent the laws of Kentucky?

Was she elected to carry out the laws of her state and county? Or to be an employee of our glorious federal rulers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's called the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. Look it up and get educated.

Fine. Educate me, oh mighty educator.

Show me where in the Supremacy Clause we're told that federal courts can legislate from the bench or impose laws on the states.

Go ahead. I'll wait while you run to Wikipedia.
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Scarlett O. has it right. What Mrs. Davis is doing is no different from a judge who refuses to grant divorces because he believes divorce is against God's will; or a judge who refuses to sign a death penalty judgment because he is opposed to the death penalty; or a President who refuses to use military force to defend the country because he believes killing is wrong; or a state attorney general who refuses to defend the state's constitutional declaration that marriage is between one man and one woman.

...or a county clerk who believes that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states.

When will these Americans and their slavish devotion to the Constitution stop? Can't they see we have glorious rulers who are not subject to the laws to rule over us?

I miss America.
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Back in Sep 2011, Rose Marie Belforti,town clerk in Ledyard, NY refused to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple. Six weeks latter, she won re-election. She retained that office in the 2013 race running on the Republic and Conservative party lines.

She is up for re-election this year.

Look at Roy Moore. When he stood up against the federal government he was removed from the bench. He ran again in the next election and was voted back in by a landslide. He's our current chief justice.

Americans want somebody who will stand up for them and stand on principle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top