Four Reasons Christians Should Support Kim Davis

"[I]n biblical and historical context, Christians should be supporting Davis, praying for her and rallying to her cause." Ref21

10183 reads

There are 39 Comments

DavidO's picture

I don't think the 10th amendment bars SCOTUS from ruling state laws unconstitutional.  KY's DOMA was struck down in Obergefell. 

TylerR's picture

Editor

Seeing as how Kim Davis is member of a Oneness Pentecostal church, perhaps we should be praying for her salvation instead. If you want to rally on this, rally around the issue, not Kim Davis as a "Christian." If she believes in the modalist heresy, as her church does, then she is not a Christian.  ​

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

I think we should be a bit more circumspect about the hills we want to die on. The Bible is clear about the 'unequal yoke', and yet has any Christian working as a clerk of courts requested that they not be required to issue a marriage license to a Christian marrying a non-Christian? Or worse, a Baptist marrying a Catholic!

Ok - I typed that last part with my sarcasm hand.

Although I believe that same sex relationships are sinful, from my pov the gov't should not be in the marriage business at all. Marriage should be a contract between two individuals (or carbon-based life forms) and the gov't only steps in when the contract is violated.

If I extend any support to Kim Davis, it will be because she was within her rights according to the law.

Larry's picture

Moderator

has any Christian working as a clerk of courts requested that they not be required to issue a marriage license to a Christian marrying a non-Christian? Or worse, a Baptist marrying a Catholic!

At least one difference is that those are actual marriages. Same sex marriage is not an actual marriage.

Secondly, the whole point of conscience is that it belongs to the individual. So claiming this person or that person should have this conscience or that conscience is beside the point. It might be true, but no one should coerce that. If her conscience tells her certain things, then she must not sin against it.

I don't think we should be questioning her salvation at this point. That's quite beside the point for this discussion. Whether Christian or not, under our law, she has a right to conscience and that should be honored. There are very reasonable accommodations that could have ended this months ago. It is a failure on the part of everyone from the governor to the legislature to the courts to the couples. 

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Yes, we are allowed to act according to conscience, but our conscience is to be guided by Scripture. If unequal yokes are forbidden, and same sex marriage is forbidden, then forbidden is forbidden. This isn't a gray area where someone can claim conscience IMO. Not like music or drinking alcoholic beverages or going to movies. There is a 'thou shalt not' for both unequal yokes and same sex relationships.

In any case, I'm not going to rally around Kim Davis as a martyr for the cause of Christ. If she is within her rights according to the law to not sign her name to a marriage certificate of a same sex couple, then she should fight for her rights, and that I can support. But I'm not beholden to her to defend Biblical principles on behalf of all Christians.

Larry's picture

Moderator

Yes, we are allowed to act according to conscience, but our conscience is to be guided by Scripture. If unequal yokes are forbidden, and same sex marriage is forbidden, then forbidden is forbidden. This isn't a gray area where someone can claim conscience IMO.

Exactly: "IMO." You are entitled to that, but that doesn't mean someone else has to agree with you. And that's the point of conscience. It is individual, and in our society, it cannot legally be coerced and scripturally it should not be violated lest we sear it. It should be trained by Scripture, but when it's not, it is still conscience and it must not be violated. The Scripture does not give explicit and unambiguous instruction on whether one's name at the bottom of a license is approval or not. Therefore, there is no way to declare that someone can't claim conscience. Even when something is explicity, conscience is still forbidden to be violated.

But you miss a key point. An unequal marriage is a marriage (assuming you have rightly proscribed such a marriage). A same sex marriage is no marriage at all. So you are comparing two things that have nothing in common in terms of marriage, such as when someone thinks something is wrong that actually isn't wrong. 

In any case, I'm not going to rally around Kim Davis as a martyr for the cause of Christ. If she is within her rights according to the law to not sign her name to a marriage certificate of a same sex couple, then she should fight for her rights, and that I can support. But I'm not beholden to her to defend Biblical principles on behalf of all Christians.

I won't either. That's not the point in the least. This is a point about our rights as citizens. Even if she isn't a Christian, she can still take correct stands. Or incorrect stands. And in our system, it is incumbent on the government to make all reasonable accommodations for religious conscience.

Mark_Smith's picture

The complication is that Kim Davis is NOT PERSONALLY condoning any marriage by placing her signature on the marriage license. She is the county clerk. The local government representative. In its human wisdom, the US Supreme Court has decided that same-sex marriage is a marriage that the entire GOVERNMENT will recognize. So, as county clerk her job is to evaluate the LEGALITY of the people who are requesting the marriage license. Do they meet the requirements of Kentucky and Federal law for a marriage? 

If the answer is YES... she signs the form. If NO, she doesn't.

Either way, IT IS NOT UP TO HER to judge the morality of the marriage in any way. By signing the document she is not morally justifying anything.

If she cannot do that, then she needs to let someone else do that or resign.

Larry's picture

Moderator

The complication is that Kim Davis is NOT PERSONALLY condoning any marriage by placing her signature on the marriage license. 

That's your conscience, not hers. And she is the one in the spotlight here. You can try to convince her that she is not personally condoning any marriage, but you have to convince her of that. You cannot simply declare it by fiat and then expect her to acquiesce. Again, it should be obvious but apparently is not, the whole point of a right of conscience is for the individual, not for a group and not for someone else.

Do they meet the requirements of Kentucky and Federal law for a marriage? 

Actually, same sex partners do not meet the requirements of Kentucky law until the law is changed.

Mark_Smith's picture

I was giving a legal analysis that is factual. A notary public is NOT condoning any morality of what they are signing, just that it is legally valid. A county clerk is NOT judging the ethics or morality of anything. That is a fact.

As for the "not a law" argument, the moment the USSC declared that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage, the laws that restricted marriage to opposite sex couples were instantly null and void. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Jack's picture

Agree with Mark's comments above. And this is, in my view, one of the most troubling things about Phillips' post. He acts as if SCOTUS has no authority here or as if it is somehow subservient to the state constitution or the oath the clerk swore. This is incorrect as a matter of law (i.e., objectively). All but a few on the fringe have accepted the Supreme Court's authority re: abortion - despite strenuous disagreement. Somehow gay marriage is a special case where Christians can blithely ignore an entire branch of government?!

Greg Long's picture

Uhh, Jack, the whole point of civil disobedience is "ignoring" (i.e., disobeying) government, no matter what specific branch.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Jack's picture

Perhaps I'm misreading Phillips, but I didn't understand him to be conceding that the clerk's actions were civil disobedience. His first point seems to me to undermine that interpretation.

Regarding civil disobedience more generally, I believe we may engage in civil disobedience only when there is a true dichotomy: obey God or obey the authorities. That's not the case here because the clerk can resign if any other course (e.g., allowing others in the office to grant the licenses) truly violates her conscience. I may be a hardliner on this - I don't believe the American Revolution was justified - but it seems to me a pretty bright line in Scripture.

Larry's picture

Moderator

I was giving a legal analysis that is factual. 

Not sure what your expertise is that allows you to give legal analyses. I don't recall it being either consitutional law or religious freedom, though perhaps I misrecall. The fact remains that religious objectors have always had the right to refuse, and the government has historically not been able to coerce that except in very rare circumstances. I think you are simply mistaken on this issue. There are many less restrictive means that could be used to address this problem, and that is part of the strict scrutiny test.

Whether or not Davis is right or wrong about her view, the fact remains that she is entitled to her objection under the law and the courts are wrong to attempt to coerce her to do otherwise. 

I tend to agree that one's signature on something is tantamount to approval. That's the usual way a signature is viewed, and it what a signature means. You probably think the same thing. That's why signatures are required on contracts, checks, etc. It is approval. And when you don't sign it, you have a reasonable argument that you didn't approve it. When you do sign it, you have virtually no reasonable argument that you didn't sign it. 

In the end, regardless of the Christian or religious merits of this, there is indisputably a constitutional right to conscientious objection and the government is bound to take the least restrictive means to achieve its end. They did not do that.

Mark_Smith's picture

OK...Let's say this Kim Davis case is about accommodation. All that she needs to do to resolve this is let some other person in her office sign the same-sex marriage forms. It is my understanding that she wouldn't allow that before.  That would be accommodation. I think she thinks accommodation is that no same-sex couples are allowed to get marriage licenses through her office while she is the clerk. That is NOT accommodation.

Others like Mike Huckabee have suggested that same-sex marriage is not technically legal in Kentucky yet. That is simply not true. I don't like it, but the SCOTUS ruling makes it legal. 

If Kim Davis wants to challenge the legality of same-sex marriage, or the SCOTUS right to declare that "the law" in US, fine. But realize that is a 3 year process. In the mean time same-sex couples are going to get married in her county. Why? Because it is legal in every other county in the US.

Tell me, is this really about accommodation, or about over turning judicial tyranny. Pick one and act consistently.

Mark_Smith's picture

What is accommodation is the Kim Davis case?

A. She doesn't sign the same-sex marriage licenses, but some else in the office can approve them.

B. She doesn't allow any marriage licenses to be issued from her office to same-sex couples because she religiously objects to them.

Larry's picture

Moderator

Mark, again you are simply incorrect.  If you read the stories, there are a number of easy accommodations that could be made that she and her attorney have suggested. Taking her name off the license was one thart they suggested and it was refused. The state legislature could have acted as other states did,  but they refused.  The governor could have acted but didn't. There were very easy solutions that were rejected.

 Others in the office can approve the license but her name would still be on them and that is her objection.  The judge who jailed her could have removed her name from all licenses.  Why didn't he? He instead pursued a course of government coercion that rejected easier solutions. 

Regarding the legality of it,  it is correct that there is currently no law in Kentucky under which same sex marriage licenses can be issued.  SCOTUS declared certain laws unconstituiona (violating is own reasoning). But they did not replace those laws. I think there is a case to be made that now,  there is no law that says anything about ssm. But same sex couples do not meet the conditions under which

 marriage licenses can be issued in Kentucky until the law is changed.  Remember SCOTUS is not s legislative body. 

Mark_Smith's picture

Sure, you can argue that way, but think about it: Traditional marriage lost the political battle. Fact.

Why? Because the country has noticeably moved away from believing almost anything about the gospel. They marry what they want and when they want. That is the current political situation. If you think that Kentucky is ever going to be able to not approve ssm, you are dead wrong. Politically the battle is lost.

So, you can say, like Huckabee, that there are no laws in Kentucky approving ssm. True. But there are no laws preventing it either, because the SCOTUS decision declared all of those unconstitutional.

Now, as for accommodation. Think rationally about this with all of its full implications. If you are the county clerk, you are the official secretary for that county. Marriages is one of the things that counties are charged by states to handle through licenses. Does it make any sense that a clerk not have their name on the licenses for that county? No it doesn't. If you can't approve of everything legal that the county does, you need to step out of the way, imho. Otherwise, a liberal government official could reject things that YOU LIKE...all because of their "conscience". That is a dangerous road to move down.

It is one thing to allow a private business owner want a religious objection, it is another for a primary government elected official like a county clerk. I have looked at the accommodations that Kim's lawyer requested, and imho they are pretty extensive. Basically, she wants the document it self to not mention her OR the Rowan County Clerk position in any way. Instead, she wants something like "state of Kentucky" and then a judge to sign it. That is a lot for one person's "objections".

Mark_Smith's picture

Is preaching the gospel, and changing the hearts and minds of people. It is not arguing to get your name removed from some document, and in the process make yourself seem even more unreasonable.

Joeb's picture

There is the a 90 mile fastball to to the outside corner and Mark SMITH swings and hits it over the right field wall.  Its a Grand Slam. No doubt about it.  There is way to much fighting and focusing to much on the fighting side by Christians.  One of my wife's friends supports these fighters ie  HUCKABEE and CRUZ,  This friend essentially told me that the US government should be run by Christians and should carry the gospel of Christ.  This friend also indicated I was in sin for not supporting this position.  I read the first amendment and what I see is just the opposite.  I have heard that Ted Cruz and his father are Dominionists, so that outlook fits.  Anyway good job MARK. 

Larry's picture

Moderator

Traditional marriage lost the political battle. Fact.

You are correct, but you are once again completing missing the point. This is not about traditional marriage or SSM. It's about religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Whether she is right or wrong on the issue, she has the right to conscientious objection, and it is incumbent on the government to accommodate that with reasonable steps. That was not done. Period. End of discussion.

 Does it make any sense that a clerk not have their name on the licenses for that county?

I think it make a lot of sense actually. Why does it need to be on there? Why not a judge? Or someone else? Or the state of Kentucky? Or Secretary of State? 

If you can't approve of everything legal that the county does, you need to step out of the way, imho.

Why? And why should someone else bow to your opinion on this? Does someone give up their constitutional rights simply because they were elected to a position? I don't think so. I doubt you think so.

Otherwise, a liberal government official could reject things that YOU LIKE...all because of their "conscience". That is a dangerous road to move down.

Exactly my point. You think it's dangerous that a person with a religious conscience lives by that. I think the danger is the opposite--that government can coerce a person to violate their conscience in order to maintain their job. I think a liberla or conservative or anyone can object to things I like, and there should be other steps to honor their conscience while achieving the outcome. If the government can coerce conscience, then they have violated the very thing the constitution and multiple laws and court decisions have protected for a very long time. A liberal or athiest or agnostic or any one else should not be required to violate their conscience. Reasonable accommodations should be made. 

I have looked at the accommodations that Kim's lawyer requested, and imho they are pretty extensive. Basically, she wants the document it self to not mention her OR the Rowan County Clerk position in any way. Instead, she wants something like "state of Kentucky" and then a judge to sign it. That is a lot for one person's "objections".

I am not sure you looked at the accommodations they want. They are not extensive at all. These accommodations have already been enacted in other states, and the judge could have very simply made that his decision rather than putting her in jail and subjecting us to this circus. But even what you describe is hardly a lot. You change the county name for the state name and the county clerk's name for a judge's name. I just typed that out in less than thirty seconds. Is thirty seconds really an overwhelming burden for religious liberty? 

Where does the government's power to coerce stop for you? At what point do you say a person of a religious belief (whatever it is) should stand up? Is there any line for you?

I think your problem is that you are focused on the religious aspect rather than the constitutional and liberty aspect. You are trying to make it about Christianity. It's not. It's about religious freedom.

 

Larry's picture

Moderator

There is the a 90 mile fastball to to the outside corner and Mark SMITH swings and hits it over the right field wall.  Its a Grand Slam. No doubt about it.

Playing in a little league park? I don't even think Mark has made a respectable attempt at an argument.

I don't think it's cut and dried one way or the other. As a whole, I wish Kim Davis would just go away. But she has raised a very important issue of religious liberty and since she has done the work of raising it, I think it's time to press the issue. Put the pressure on the people to either confirm or deny their belief in religious freedom. Let us no longer allow people to play both sides of the fence. Let's draw the line clearly. Either people have religious freedom to live by their conscience or they don't. Which do you believe?

Before you say Kim Davis is a government employee and therefore must do her job, please find that part of the constitution that reserves religious freedom only for non-government employees. Before you say if she couldn't do the job she shouldn't have taken it, remember that she is willing to do the job she took.  

So does a person have the consitutional freedom to live by their conscience without making that a test of employment?

One of my wife's friends supports these fighters ie  HUCKABEE and CRUZ,  This friend essentially told me that the US government should be run by Christians and should carry the gospel of Christ.  This friend also indicated I was in sin for not supporting this position. 

Sounds like you need better friends.

 

Mark_Smith's picture

OK, so a judge signs the license instead of the clerk. What if she objects? What if all judges object? Ok, so you send it to the Sec of State. What if he objects? 

So now a person can't do what the law allows, whether I approve or not, based on "religious accommodation". 

Does that sound reasonable?

 

Now, how about this? You are a church looking to build a new property. You go to the zoning planning board for approval. The chairman refuses to sign the approval because he religiously objects to your use... Sound good?

You call the police from your church office because hear a burglar. The only officer on duty refuses to respond because he is Catholic and doesn't like Baptists. He has religious objection to them.

A child at your church gets hurt and needs a blood transfusion. The only doctor on duty is a JW. He doesn't believe in blood transfusions, so he refuses to give one. The child dies. Hey... he had a religious objection.

Carry that on into a thousand things government officials do...

Is that really what we want to do civilly in this country?

Mark_Smith's picture

Friday, I went to my county's Register of Deeds to get a copy of my DD214 (my military discharge paperwork) that I had filed there when I was discharged. What if the register of deeds was a Quaker, a pacifist, who didn't believe in the military. So, he refused me service because his conscience wouldn't let him support the military?

To get into the county court house you have to pass through a metal detector and be inspected by the Highway Patrol. I have a key chain dangle that is a cut-out of a cross made of nails. The highway patrolman wanted to take another look at it to make sure it was safe. What if he was an atheist, and refused to tolerate looking at or inspecting Christian symbols so he refused to let me in?

What if a muslim federal meat inspector refused to inspect pork... What if a small county sheriff were Jewish and refused to work on Saturday, or let any other deputy work on Saturday lest his religious conscience be violated?

These examples I am giving might be silly, but the point is if you open the "conscience" box, you never know what might come flying out. It might be worse than what you were avoiding in the first place. 

Remember, there are people of other religions than Christianity that can claim a "consciencous objection".

Larry's picture

Moderator

Your examples "might" be silly? They passed that a long time ago. And there's a major problem with all your scenarios, including the one with Kim Davis. You assume that there is only one person that can do said thing. That's false. In Kentucky there were more than 100 places where these couples could have gotten a license. In fact, apparently one of the couples could have stayed in Ohio where they live instead of coming to Kentucky. Or things could have been changed so that they get it locally without burdening someone's conscience. You keep ignoring these facts in pursuit of some strange point.

There are many judges who do object to performing same sex marriages and many progressive, forward thinking states have already passed laws that protect them. The question is why Kentucky didn't do the same thing. It would have been simple. 

You can make up all sorts of hypotheticals, none of which really make sense or are realistic.

Again, Mark, if you read the stories you see just how simple this is to solve to the satisfaction of all parties. There are a number of different ways to do it and it would have been quick and easy. It seems, at this point, that you are reaching for straws in an attempt to be obtuse about it.

Yes, if any of those people object to something on the basis of religious conscience that should be honored as it has historically by finding an alternate means so long as it provides no undue hardship to the employer. Mark, this is a long settled principle of conscience in our culture. No need to change it now to achieve some social experimental ends. 

Mark_Smith's picture

Let's take your view. If the accommodations for Kim Davis are "long settled", easy, and minor, why did the governor, legislature, judges, etc, not offer it to Kim? 

 

Why then has Kim not filed a lawsuit seeking her accommodations if they are "long settled" and minor?

 

Larry, do you really think it is reasonable to make people in Rowan county go to another county to get a license, all because Kim can't let the title "Rowan County Clerk" be on a same-sex marriage license? 

Larry, as for your judges example in other states. What if a head judge in some district said not only is she not doing same-sex marriages, but no other judge is either? Has that happened? No, because it is ridiculous to claim that your personal religious convictions keep an entire office from acting. Yet, that is what Kim Davis is claiming.

 

 

Mark_Smith's picture

Seriously here. If Christians are a majority in the USA, and want marriage laws to match that religion's viewpoint, why can't an atheist claim a religious accommodation to allow a same-sex marriage?

jimcarwest's picture

I suppose there are some who side with Mark Smith and some who side with Larry (which I do).  Both think they have good arguments which negate the view of the other.  In the end, I suspect it will be liberal politicians, enemies of the Constitution, and people who have no moral compass who will prevail,  if we go by the trends.  I suspect that Mark Smith will follow his conscience, governed by his view of the law.  And Larry (and the rest of us) will follow our conscience by our view of the law.  In the end, conscience will prevail as the arbiter, but in the process freedom of religion will suffer.  Mark Smith may not see it, but imho, an important aspect of the American experiment may die with the Kim Davis case.  We should all lament the loss.

Larry's picture

Moderator

If the accommodations for Kim Davis are "long settled", easy, and minor, why did the governor, legislature, judges, etc, not offer it to Kim? 

I don't think the accommodations are long-settled. I don't know why you would say that. I certainly didn't say that. What is long-settled is the principle of conscience and religious objection and reasonable accommodations for it. There is a long history of how that is managed in our culture. It is true that the accommodations here are minor and easy. Why didn't they do anything? Perhaps the governor wished to make a political point and so he didn't call the legislature back into session. I think the legislature adjourned for the year long before this case was settled. The judge just messed up; that's all there is to that one. Rather than seek a mediated position that could satisfy all parties, he instead is trying to force one. In that he violated the long-standing practices of the court system to accommodate religious beliefs.

Why then has Kim not filed a lawsuit seeking her accommodations if they are "long settled" and minor?

I think she has, but I am not sure of that exactly. I think she has requested accommodations before the judge, and requested a stay from the 6th circuit and from SCOTUS until she could resolve it through the courts. It was denied.

Larry, do you really think it is reasonable to make people in Rowan county go to another county to get a license, all because Kim can't let the title "Rowan County Clerk" be on a same-sex marriage license? 

Yes, I think that is very reasonable. I had to drive three hours to get mine. If you want to get married, that's not a big deal. But I think there are also a number of other reasonable steps that could also have been taken. The question for you is why aren't you willing to seek one of these simple accommodations? What price is religious freedom and conscience worth? Is a twenty mile drive too much? Or the changing of a signature? Is that really too much to ask to allow someone to live by their conscience?

if a head judge in some district said not only is she not doing same-sex marriages, but no other judge is either? Has that happened? No, because it is ridiculous to claim that your personal religious convictions keep an entire office from acting. Yet, that is what Kim Davis is claiming.

Again, you are confused here. You are comparing two entirely dissimilar things. No judge has authority over another judge at the same level. Judges all over have said they won't do same sex marriages and they refer them to other judges. And some have said they won't do any marriages until same sex marriages are legal. No one seems to be complaining about that too much. I really don't care one way or the other. Marriages are functional in terms of the legal status and the officiant of the wedding conveys no special grace to the ceremony.

No one has said that one person's personal religious convictions should keep an entire office from acting. In fact, that's the one thing that an accommodation cannot do. The issue here is that in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the clerk is the name that goes on all licenses. The deputy clerk's names do not go on the licenses. Her office can continue to operate in other areas, and it could continue to operate here with very simple changes. Why aren't you trumpeting that and insisting on that?

Mark, I seriously don't understand your point here. You seem insistent that all religious rights and freedom of conscience be removed. You seem to have no room at all for those who disagree with you, and that is the very thing that the religious freedom issue was designed to prevent--people like you demanding that everyone else see it and do it their way. That was the things the courts were designed to stop. Here, they failed. They rather contributed to the problem. 

For my dollar, I am fine if a particular person doesn't want to do something for religious reasons. Let someone else do it, and that is exactly what should be done in Kentucky and everywhere else.

Again, I don't really care about Kim Davis or the issue itself at this point. I care about the principle involved that the state must not coerce religious conscience of any kind. It must instead make reasonable accommodations for all citizens to live by their conscience.

Jay's picture

In the end, I suspect it will be liberal politicians, enemies of the Constitution, and people who have no moral compass who will prevail,  if we go by the trends.  I suspect that Mark Smith will follow his conscience, governed by his view of the law.  And Larry (and the rest of us) will follow our conscience by our view of the law.  In the end, conscience will prevail as the arbiter, but in the process freedom of religion will suffer.

I agree with this, which leads to my follow up question.  Does a believer have an scriptural mandate to refuse to perform their duties? To put it another way, must believers refuse to do their duties, whatever they are, or should they simply resign on the basis of conscience and take the higher ground in doing so?

I'm looking at a lot of Scripture on this subject and I'm not convinced that the most commonly cited examples in Daniel apply, simply because the options were literally 'sin or die'.  Not 'sin or lose your job and then go find something else to do'.  I'm thinking a lot about Joseph in Egypt and Daniel's reply to King Belshazzar in Daniel 5.  Those stories seem much more applicable than the golden image or the lion's den stories.

Peter talks about Christ being our example in terms of suffering:

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. for you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

I started rereading Jesus' response to Pilate in the gospels this morning, and I just don't see a mandate to 'stand and fight' on this topic. If it was a matter of sign the form or be beheaded for Jesus, that makes it a lot different.  But in 21st century America, we have the liberty to walk away.

In short - when we are told by authorities to do something explictly spelled out as sin in God's word, that's one thing.  One could argue that Kim is simply an instrument by the secular government to show that they recognize a marriage as 'legitimate', which is a lot different from her personally approving marriages (if she were a justice of the peace or something like that).

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Pages