When a Supreme Court makes a ruling against the majority opinion of the people of the United States and when a Kentucky Judge rules that anything except the opinions of Judges are NATURAL LAW, including the Kentucky Constitutional Amendment that marriage is a man and a woman by a vote of 75% of the people of the state, and when a sitting county clerk, elected to the office by the people and serving for 27 years is put in prison for believing the Bible that Homosexuality is a sin condemned by God as an Abomination, we have something right here at home that is more dangerous than ISIS or any other terrorist group outside this country. ISIS does not affect us in our every day life but TERRORIST JUDGES affect the very fabric of morality in this country.
Judge David Bunning should not be a judge according to those who review him before he was appointed:
(From The Blaze)
“The American Bar Association Called Him Unqualified
“After Bush nominated Bunning for the judgeship, the ABA said he wasn’t qualified for the post because of a lack of experience.
“At the time, the University of Kentucky law school graduate had 10 years experience as an assistant U.S. attorney. The ABA wants federal judges to have at least 12 years of experience.
An attorney reviewing Bunning for the ABA at the time said his writings “read very much like the work of a young associate,” the Lexington Herald-Leader reported.”
Here is an excellent article from Mass Resistance dot org that shows just how serious our problem is:
Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis jailed as the post-‘gay marriage’ revolution ratchets up.
Article in national pro-“gay” magazine outlines what’s in store for America
POSTED: Sept 4 2015
In 2004, 75% of Kentucky voters passed a State Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. On Thursday, Sept. 3, County Clerk Kim Davis was sent to jail by U.S. District Judge David Bunning because she refuses to issue “gay marriage” licenses, a decision which she says is rooted in her strong Christian faith.
The judge told her that she’ll stay in jail until she’s willing to change her mind — and go against her conscience and faith. He said that he’d review the situation in a week. The judge said that he jailed her because fining her “would not bring about the desired result of compliance”.
There are approximately 125 county officials throughout Kentucky who can issue “gay marriage” licenses. But the judge was adamant that every county official must be forced to do it and that religious freedom cannot be allowed, despite the First Amendment. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” he said.
The post-“gay marriage” revolution
Most pro-family people didn’t see the chilling article that appeared in The Nation, a major left-wing magazine, the day before the U.S. Supreme Court “gay marriage” ruling came out. The article outlines where the LGBT movement is going after “gay marriage.”
The Nation article, “What’s Next for the LGBT Movement?”, quotes four high-profile LGBT activists who reveal that “gay marriage” was never their final goal. The LGBT movement will not be stopping to rest, they say. Their plan is to delegitimize and crush all opposition to their agenda everywhere in America – particularly in the churches — no matter how small.
Some of the things the article outlines:
- “Dis-establish marriage.” “Gay marriage” was simply a stepping stone. Their actual goal is that there be no formal marriage rules at all. This means group marriages are next, then incestuous marriages, and later even marriages to minors. It would simply be up to the people directly involved to decide.
- Pass strong LGBT “non-discrimination” laws across the US. These are the laws that force bakers to bake “gay marriage” cakes or face huge punishments. Such laws would also force schools to include LGBT indoctrination. Most states still do not have the onerous laws the LGBT movement demands. The activists refer to those states (mostly in the South and Midwest) as “zones without rights” in their propaganda.
- Ban all “religious liberty” laws. They consider religious liberty to be a dangerous ploy to “undermine all civil rights laws” that must be stopped at all costs. All people must be forced to follow the LGBT agenda, with no exceptions.
- Demonize pro-family conservatives and silence all dissent. They plan to direct “massive amounts of funds” to “expose and defeat the right wing” across America.
- Push a radical political agenda. They plan to leverage their power to support Marxist economic policies, the right to “early term abortion,” and similar policies.
Starting to happen
Last month the Denver City Council moved to deny the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain permission to do business at the Denver Airport because the company’s president said he does not agree with “gay marriage.” One Council member labeled the president’s pro-marriage beliefs “discriminatory political rhetoric,” and thus his company must not be allowed to make profits from the city’s airport. (Chick-fil-A restaurants have never been accused of actually discriminating against anyone.)
The national homosexual group Human Rights Campaign is already raising millions of dollars to fight religious freedom laws around the country.
And of course, there’s the upswing of left-wing hate and demonization of religious people. The day after Kim Davis was jailed, the Boston Globe prominently published an op-ed article titled “Kim Davis follows the footsteps of George Wallace” which states, among other things, that “Davis is just the latest in a long, infernal line of fanatics to contort their so-called faith into an excuse for hatred and division.” The Left’s hatred of religious people is visceral, and now it’s coming to the forefront.
Lots of hypocrisy
The jailing of Kim Davis by Judge Bunning, like most of the Left’s actions, is full of hypocrisy. In 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began illegally ordering county clerks to issue “gay marriage” licenses, or in 2009 when California clerks (and the Governor) ignored the Prop 8 ruling against issuing “gay marriage” licenses and continued to do so, no judge intervened at all. (And they were actuallybreaking laws. In Davis’ case there is no law on the books, only a court ruling.)
Cowards and compromisers
It pains us to say it, but for decades the pro-family movement has been crippled from gaining ground by cowards and compromisers, from top to bottom. Don’t get us started on what led to the disastrous the Supreme Court “gay marriage” ruling. And it continues with the Kim Davis issue.
While Kim Davis sits in jail, five of her six deputy clerks have shamelessly agreed to abide by the judge’s wishes and started issuing “gay marriage” licenses. (The one holdout is her son.) According to news reports, starting the very next day they were issuing them quite cheerfully, even shaking the hands of the homosexual couples with their new marriage licenses.
A disturbing number of pro-family and church leaders across the country have sided with the Federal Judge, saying that Kim Davis should go to jail for “not following the law.” (As mentioned above there is no “law” on the books – it is only a court ruling. Nor could the judge cite such a law.)
Even the National Review has published an article saying “[R]eligious-liberty protections cannot act as a bar to gay couples: If the law permits a U.S. citizen to get a license, there must be a way for the gay couple to access it, with their dignity intact.”
Wonderful. What a lame movement we’re in!
What can good people do?
We can certainly see what’s coming up. It’s a hardcore take-no-prisoners approach. We must react accordingly. What most of our movement has tried hasn’t worked and isn’t going to work.
MassResistance believes that their whole program must be confronted. Using what resources we have, we believe in taking the offensive. This means challenging that movement everywhere we can. First and foremost means not holding back on telling the unabashed truth, no matter what the consequences. (For example, most conservatives are squeamish about talking about the well-documented medical and psychological destructiveness of homosexual behavior.)
The LGBT movement wins when we become afraid to confront them. (And we’re coming up with an innovative way to do just that.)
We will be discussing this further in upcoming posts.
FEDERAL JUDGE DEFENDING THE VERY THING HE CALLS A “DANGEROUS PRECEDENT”
“The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,”
This statement by the Judge is most disturbing because he is actually defending “natural law” but has no idea what it is. He also puts the court’s authority over the constitution which is just as dangerous. This judge has actually done what he says is a dangerous precedent. The Bible gives a very clear definition:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man – ψυχικὸς, δὲ ἄνθρωπος psuchikos de anthrōpos. The word “natural” here stands opposed evidently to “spiritual.” It denotes those who are governed and influenced by the natural instincts; the animal passions and desires, in opposition to those who are influenced by the Spirit of God. It refers to unregenerate people; but it has also not merely the idea of their being unregenerate, but that of their being influenced by the animal passions or desires. See the note on 1Co_15:44. The word “sensual” would correctly express the idea. The word is used by the Greek writers to denote that which man has in common with the brutes – to denote that they are under the influence of the senses, or the mere animal nature, in opposition to reason and conscience – Bretschneider. See 1Th_5:23. Here it denotes that they are under the influence of the senses, or the animal nature, in opposition to being influenced by the Spirit of God. Macknight and Doddridge render it: “the animal man.”
Whitby understands by it the man who rejects revelation, the man who is under the influence of carnal wisdom. The word occurs but six times in the New Testament; 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:46; Jam_3:15; Jud_1:19. In 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:46, it is rendered “natural,” and is applied to the body as it exists before death, in contradistinction from what shall exist after the resurrection – called a spiritual body. In Jam_3:15, it is applied to wisdom: “This wisdom – is earthly, sensual, devilish.” In Jud_1:19, it is applied to sensual persons, or those who are governed by the senses in opposition to those who are influenced by the Spirit: “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.” The word here evidently denotes those who are under the influence of the senses; who are governed by the passions and the animal appetites, and natural desires; and who are uninfluenced by the Spirit of God. And it may be observed that this was the case with the great mass of the pagan world, even including the philosophers.
Receiveth not – οὐ δέχεται ou dechetai, does not “embrace” or “comprehend” them. That is, he rejects them as folly; he does not perceive their beauty, or their wisdom; he despises them. He loves other things better. A man of intemperance does not receive or love the arguments for temperance; a man of licentiousness, the arguments for chastity; a liar, the arguments for truth. So a sensual or worldly man does not receive or love the arguments for religion.
The things of the Spirit of God – The doctrines which are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the things which pertain to his influence on the heart and life. The things of the Spirit of God here denote all the things which the Holy Spirit produces.
Neither can he know them – Neither can he understand or comprehend them. Perhaps, also, the word “know” here implies also the idea of “loving,” or “approving” of them, as it often does in the Scripture. Thus, to know the Lord often means to love him, to have a full, practical acquaintance with him. When the apostle says that the animal or sensual man cannot know those things, he may have reference to one of two things. Either:
(1) That those doctrines were not discoverable by human wisdom, or by any skill which the natural man may have, but were to be learned only by revelation. This is the main drift of his argument, and this sense is given by Locke and Whitby. Or,
(2) He may mean that the sensual the unrenewed man cannot perceive their beauty and their force, even after they are revealed to man, unless the mind is enlightened and inclined by the Spirit of God. This is probably the sense of the passage.
This is the simple affirmation of a fact – that while the man remains sensual and carnal, he cannot perceive the beauty of those doctrines. And this is a simple and well known fact. It is a truth – universal and lamentable – that the sensual man, the worldly man, the proud, haughty, and self-confident man; the man under the influence of his animal appetites – licentious, false, ambitious, and vain – does not perceive any beauty in Christianity. So the intemperate man perceives no beauty in the arguments for temperance; the adulterer, no beauty in the arguments for chastity; the liar, no beauty in the arguments for truth. It is a simple fact, that while he is intemperate, or licentious, or false, he can perceive no beauty in these doctrines.
But this does not prove that he has no natural faculties for perceiving the force and beauty of these arguments; or that he might not apply his mind to their investigation, and be brought to embrace them; or that he might not abandon the love of intoxicating drinks, and sensuality, and falsehood, and be a man of temperance, purity, and truth. He has all the natural faculties which are requisite in the case; and all the inability is his “strong love” of intoxicating drinks, or impurity, or falsehood. So of the sensual sinner. While he thus remains in love with sin, he cannot perceive the beauty of the plan of salvation, or the excellency of the doctrines of religion. He needs just the love of these things, and the hatred of sin. He needs to cherish the influences of the Spirit; to receive what He has taught, and not to reject it through the love of sin; he needs to yield himself to their influences, and then their beauty will be seen.
The passage here proves that while a man is thus sensual, the things of the Spirit will appear to him to be folly; it proves nothing about his ability, or his natural faculty, to see the excellency of these things, and to turn from his sin. It is the affirmation of a simple fact everywhere discernible, that the natural man does not perceive the beauty of these things; that while he remains in that state he cannot; and that if he is ever brought to perceive their beauty, it will be by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such is his love of sin, that he never will be brought to see their beauty except by the agency of the Holy Spirit. “For wickedness perverts the judgment, and makes people err with respect to practical principles; so that no one can be wise and judicious who is not good.” Aristotle, as quoted by Bloomfield.
They are spiritually discerned – That is, they are perceived by the aid of the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind and influencing the heart.
(The expression ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος psuchikos anthrōpos; has given rise to much controversy. Frequent attempts have been made to explain it, merely of the animal or sensual man. If this be the true sense, the doctrine of human depravity, in as far at least as this text may be supposed to bear upon it, is greatly invalidated. The apostle would seem to affirm only, that individuals, addicted to the gross indulgences of sense, are incapable of discerning and appreciating spiritual things. Thus, a large exception would be made in favor of all those who might be styled intellectual and moral persons, living above the inferior appetites, and directing their faculties to the candid investigation of truth. That the phrase, however, is to be explained of the natural or “unregenerate” man, whether distinguished for intellectual refinement, and external regard to morals, or degraded by animal indulgence, will appear evident from an examination of the passage.
The word in dispute comes from ψυχή psuchē, which though it primarily signify the breath or animal life, is by no means confined to that sense, but sometimes embraces the mind or soul “as distinguished both from man’s body and from his πνεῦμα pneuma, or spirit, breathed into him immediately by God” – See Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon. The etymology of the word does not necessarily require us, then, to translate it “sensual.” The context therefore alone must determine the matter. Now the “natural man” is there opposed to the spiritual man, the ψυχικὸς psuchikos to the πνευματικὸς pneumatikos, and if the latter be explained of “him who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit” – who is regenerate – the former must be explained of him who is not enlightened by that Spirit, who is still in a state of nature; and will thus embrace a class far more numerous than the merely sensual part of mankind.
Farther; the general scope of the passage demands this view. The Corinthians entertained an excessive fondness for human learning and wisdom. They loved philosophical disquisition and oratorical display, and may therefore have been impatient of the “enticing words” of Paul. To correct their mistaken taste, the apostle asserts and proves the utter insufficiency of human wisdom, either to discover spiritual things, or to appreciate them when discovered. He exclaims “where is the ‘wise’? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” 1Co_1:17, 1Co_1:31. Now it would be strange indeed, if in bringing his argument to a conclusion, he should simply assert, that “sensual” people were incapable of spiritual discernment. So lame and impotent a conclusion is not to be attributed to the apostle. The disputed phrase, therefore, must be understood of all unregenerate persons, however free from gross sin, or eminent in intellectual attainment. Indeed it is the “proud wisdom” of the world, and not its sensuality, that the apostle? throughout has chiefly in view. Add to all this; that the simplicity of the gospel has “in reality” met with more bitter opposition and pointed scorn, from people of worldly wisdom, than from people of the sensual class. Of the former, is it especially true that they have counted the gospel “foolishness” and contemptuously rejected its message.
Of this natural man it is affirmed that he cannot know the things of the Spirit of God. He can know them “speculatively,” and may enlarge on them with great accuracy and beauty, but he cannot know them so as to approve and receive. Allowing the incapacity to be moral, not natural or physical, that is to say, it arises from “disinclination or perversion of will:” still the spiritual perception is affected by the fall, and whether that be directly or indirectly through the will, matters not, “as far as the fact is concerned.” It remains the same. The mind of man, when applied to spiritual subjects, does not now have the same discernment that it originally had, and as our author remarks, if it is ever brought to perceive their beauty, it must be by the agency of the Spirit. (See the supplementary note on Rom_8:7.)
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Because – This is given as a reason for what is said in Rom_8:6. In that verse the apostle had affirmed that to be carnally minded was death, but he had not stated why it was. He now explains it by saying that it is enmity against God, and thus involves a sinner in conflict with him, and exposes to his condemnation.
The carnal mind – This is the same expression as occurs in Rom_8:6 τὸ φρόνημα τὴς σαρκός to phronēma tēs sarkos. It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God; but it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God; and involves the sinner in a controversy with him, and hence, leads to death and woe. This passage should not be alleged in proof that the soul is physically depraved, but merely that where there is a supreme regard to the flesh there is hostility to God. It does not directly prove the doctrine of universal depravity; but it proves only that where such attention exists to the corrupt desires of the soul, there is hostility to God. It is indeed implied that that supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, but this is not expressly affirmed. For the object of the apostle here is not to teach the doctrine of depravity, but to show that where such depravity in fact exists, it involves the sinner in a fearful controversy with God.
Is enmity – Hostility; hatred. It means that such a regard to the flesh is in fact hostility to God, because it is opposed to his Law, and to his plan for purifying the soul; compare Jam_4:4; 1Jo_2:15. The minding of the things of the flesh also leads to the hatred of God himself, because he is opposed to it, and has expressed his abhorrence of it.
Against God – Toward God; or in regard to him. It supposes hostility to him.
For it – The word “it” here refers to the minding of the things of the flesh. It does not mean that the soul itself is not subject to his Law, but that the minding of those things is hostile to his Law. The apostle does not express any opinion about the metaphysical ability of man, or discuss that question at all. The amount of his affirmation is simply, that the minding of the flesh, the supreme attention to its dictates and desires, is not and cannot be subject to the Law of God. They are wholly contradictory and irreconcilable, just as much as the love of falsehood is inconsistent with the laws of truth; as intemperance is inconsistent with the law of temperance; and as adultery is a violation of the seventh commandment. But whether the man himself might not obey the Law, whether he has, or has not, ability to do it, is a question which the apostle does not touch, and on which this passage should not be adduced. For whether the law of a particular sin is utterly irreconcilable with an opposite virtue, and whether the sinner is able to abandon that sin and pursue a different path, are very different inquiries.
Is not subject – It is not in subjection to the command of God. The minding of the flesh is opposed to that law, and thus shows that it is hostile to God.
Neither indeed can be – This is absolute and certain. It is impossible that it should be. There is the utmost inability in regard to it. The things are utterly irreconcilable. But the affirmation does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be subject to God; or that his soul is so physically depraved that he cannot obey, or that he might not obey the law. On that, the apostle here expresses no opinion. That is not the subject of the discussion. It is simply that the supreme regard to the flesh, t the minding of that, is utterly irreconcilable with the Law of God. They are different things, and can never be made to harmonize; just as adultery cannot be chastity; falsehood cannot be truth; dishonesty cannot be honesty; hatred cannot be love. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to prove the doctrine of man’s inability to love God, for it does not refer to that, but it proves merely that a supreme regard to the things of the flesh is utterly inconsistent with the Law of God; can never be reconciled with it; and involves the sinner in hostility with his Creator.
(Calvinists have been loudly accused of “taking an unfair advantage of this language, for the support of their favorite doctrine of the utter impotency of the unregenerate man, in appreciating, much less conforming to the divine injunctions.” It is alleged that φρονημα της σαρκος phronēma tēs sarkos refers to the disposition of the mind, and is properly translated, “the minding of the flesh.” Therefore, it is this disposition or affection, and not the mind itself, that is enmity against God. But the meaning of the passage is not affected by this change in the translation. For the apostle affirms that this minding of the flesh is the uniform and prevailing disposition of unregenerate people. “They that are after the flesh,” that is, unregenerate people,” do mind the things of the flesh.” This is their character without exception. Now, if the natural mind be uniformly under the influence of this depraved disposition, is it not enmity to God. Thus, in point of fact, there is no difference between the received and the amended translation. To affirm that the mind itself is not hostile to God, and that its disposition alone is so, is little better than metaphysical trifling, and deserves no more regard than the plea which any wicked man might easily establish, by declaring that his disposition only, and not himself, was hostile to the laws of religion and morals. On the whole, it is not easy to conceive how the apostle could more forcibly have affirmed the enmity of the natural mind against God. He first describes unrenewed people by their character or bent, and then asserts that this bent is the very essence of enmity against God – enmity in the abstract.
To anyone ignorant of the subtleties of theological controversy, the doctrine of moral inability would seem a plain consequence from this view of the natural mind. “It is,” says Mr Scott, on the passage “morally unable to do anything but revolt against the divine Law, and refuse obedience to it.” We are told, however, that the passage under consideration affirms only, that unregenerate people, while they continue in that state, cannot please God, or yield obedience to his Law, and leaves untouched the other question. concerning the power of the carnal mind to throw off the disposition of enmity, and return to subjection. But if it be not expressly affirmed by the apostle here, that the carnal mind has not this power, it would seem at least to be a plain enough inference from his doctrine. For if the disposition of the unregenerate man be enmity against God: whence is the motive to arise that shall make him dislike that disposition, and throw it aside, and assume a better in its stead? From within it cannot come, because, according to the supposition, there is enmity only; and love cannot arise out of hatred. If it come from without, from the aids and influences of the Spirit, the question is ceded, and the dispute at an end.
A very common way of casting discredit on the view which Calvinists entertain of the doctrine of man’s inability, is to represent it as involving some natural or physical disqualification. Nothing can be more unfair. There is a wide difference between natural and moral inability. The one arises from “some defect or obstacle extrinsic to the will, either in the understanding, constitution of the body, or external objects:” the other from “the want of inclination, or the strength of a contrary inclination.” Now the Scriptures no where assert, nor have rational Calvinists ever maintained, that there is any physical incapacity of this kind, apart from the corrupt bias and inclination of the will, on account of which, the natural man cannot be subject to the Law of God. But on the other hand, the Scriptures are full of evidence on the subject of moral inability. Even were we to abandon this passage, the general doctrine of revelation is, that unregenerate people are dead in trespasses and in sins; and the entire change that takes place in regeneration and sanctification, is uniformly ascribed not to the “man himself,” but to the power of the Spirit of God. Not only is the change carried on and perfected, but begun, by him.
What Judge David L. Bunning got wrong
Since Reynolds (1878), the guiding principle of jurisprudence on issues of religious freedom vrs statutory law has been that free exercise is to be respected over statutory law with these provisos:
1) Free exercise can only be superseded by statutory law when the government has acompelling interest in enforcing statutory law.
2) Denial of religious freedom, when necessary due to a compelling interest, must be done by the least coercive means possible.
Regarding Davis, the government has no compelling interest in forcing Davis herself to issue the licenses. It could be done by a clerk in a neighboring county, which also would be less coercive regarding Davis.
The judge botched the law and violated Davis’ constitutional rights. He needs to be removed from the bench, and prosecuted for violation of Ms. Davis’ constitutional rights under color of law.
Actually, issuing the license in Kentucky is not merely an “administrative act.” Unlike other duties of the County Clerk, the marriage license actually requires the Clerk to participate in the execution of the document. When you buy a property of get a mortgage, the clerk records the deed and mortgage, but the clerk doesn’t help prepare the deed or mortgage, or in any way get involved in the execution of the documents, or even act as gate keeper to approve or disapprove of the transaction; the clerk merely records what happened. With a marriage license, the clerk must sign the license, and by doing so grants permission for marriage. One might ask why any government agency is involved “approving” marriages, but it is what it is. So, Kim Davis was put in a no-win position when five perverts in black robes decided that there had magically appeared somewhere in the US Constitution a “right” for same-sex couples to get married.
[She endorses marriage as representing the state,]
The law of the State of Kentucky does not permit gay marriage. And since she took no oath to “enforce the whims of unelected lawyers who violate the Constitution”, she is under no legal obligation to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.