The lawyer for Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has stated that she met with Pope Francis during the pontiff’s visit to Washington D.C. last week and received encouragement from him in the meeting. It is a surprising disclosure, if true, but Attorney Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel insists that the Pope spoke to Davis and her husband in English and said “Thank you for your courage” and told her to “stay strong.”
The Vatican is mum on the alleged meeting or who was present on September 24 at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington. That was the same day that he had spoken to Congress.
That adds an interesting political wrinkle for Democrats who generally love (as do I) this Pope for his views on climate change, poverty, and other issues. The Pope however also spoke against abortion and does not support same-sex marriage. If he also supports Davis, it can create some difficult issues with the party line on the Clerk. After all, as we discussed today, you have one Democrat who reveres the Pope so much that he is actually dispensing the Pope’s drinking water to family from the glass used during his speech before Congress.
Of course, there is no reason why either Republicans and Democrats cannot still oppose the position of Davis even if (and that is still an “if”) the Pope supports her position. After all, many support the right to choose even when they are personally against abortion and remain practicing Catholics. Yet, it is intriguing that this is one of the people that the Pope would choose to meet if the account is correct.
I am surprised if the Vatican agreed to this meeting. Even the people on rope lines are often screened for the Pope though he is known to plunge into crowds. If this was a truly arranged “meeting,” it is pretty significant that Davis would be selected for such a meeting and encouragement. Politicians like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have been criticized for their support of Davis, who asserts the right to impose her religious views of the legitimacy of a marriage before performing her purely ministerial functions. Reporters have been trying to get the Vatican to confirm whether the Pope has added his voice of support.
Of course, the Vatican could spin the meeting as support for someone following her faith rather than endorsing her legal position. Nevertheless, the alleged meeting may be the most surprising in this even-filled Papal visit.
How ’bout that Putin! Met w/ Obama yesterday but didn’t tell him bombing would start today. He had a general pop in on our embassy, “Bombing start in one hour, please to get your planes from sky”[You have to remember the great flick, The Russians are coming to appreciate]. This is just a pawn and bishop move on Putin’s part. Wait until he gets warmed up and really pimp slaps our President.
David, by “dishonest”, Annie means that you disagree with her.
She may equally have said you were racist/homophobic/misogynist/cisgenderist or whatever label she had at hand.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/pastors-not-facing-jail-time
“There’s no link to the Daily Caller article in question, but I’m guessing it’s an article from the day before (itself citing a Daily Signal commentary by Ryan T. Anderson) concerning a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation.
“Places of public accommodation” does not include churches, though it may include for-profit wedding chapels such as the Hitching Post. City attorney Michael C. Gridley has been quoted as saying:
“For-profit wedding chapels in the city now are in a position where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit. If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services to them, that you would provide for anyone else, then in theory you violated our code and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”
I can’t find any evidence in that article or elsewhere that any ordinance or any city official said anything that could be construed as threatening fines or jail time for “Christian pastors within their community” beyond the specific case of for-profit wedding chapels.”
In fact, just yesterday in the ongoing Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage, the attorney arguing for imposing same-sex “marriage” specifically said that it was “obviously” not the case that pastors of churches could be forced to go against their church’s religious precepts — and two of the court’s liberal justices, Kagan and Breyer, agreed. (Kagan, in particular, pointed out that under the First Amendment rabbis can refuse to marry Jews to Gentiles, although this would obviously be illegal discrimination in any non-religious context.
But despite the impression some have gotten on social media, they aren’t coming for our pastors. To do that, they would have to blow away the First Amendment entirely, and that isn’t happening under this Supreme Court. Call me naive, but I doubt whether any Supreme Court, certainly any Supreme Court in any particular foreseeable future, would undertake to dismantle the Constitution to that degree.”
**********************
This from a Catholic website and an author that does not agree with same sex marriage. As it turned out, the wedding chapel in question was not fined afterall for refusing to marry same sex couples.
At this point, PP needs to be removed from federal funding, then individuals can decide if they want to support a business that sells baby brains, organs and limbs.
Well, I prayed this thread would not devolve. But, all prayers are not answered. If they were, all football teams would win.
Wedding chapels are NOT clergy and are not protected in the same way Churches are. David you are a very dishonest person, I’ve discovered.
The “selling” of fetal parts is most absolutely in dispute. What absolute idiocy.
Inga – I am going to guess that you did not watch all the PP videos. PP only responded to the first video. Basically they have been singing the same hymn since. There is no question that PP is selling baby parts.
http://www.frc.org/clergyprotected
Here you go David. From the Family Research Council itself.
Annie wrote: “Here you go David. From the Family Research Council itself.”
There is no doubt that by custom and etiquette, exceptions are carved out for religious institutions. But this is only a ploy to garner support and votes. Once people get accustomed to a new value system, people will begin to question why the laws do not apply equally to everybody. Why are the Christians allowed to be bigots? It is time that they too embrace gay marriage. The laws should apply to everyone equally. No exceptions for Christians or any other religious group.
Obergefell would have never happened except that Lawrence happened first. If the sexual acts of gay marriage were still considered criminal, there is no way that government would make sacred their sexual activities through creating the institution of gay marriage. This is the way of a slippery slope. If you seriously think Obergefell will stand without any impact on Christians, you are mistaken. Obergefell only opens up a huge cultural war that will not end until the Christians and their holy way of living are destroyed. Of course the other option is for Christians to accept sexual hedonism as a value. Then there would be no conflict, but some would argue that the true values of Christ would cease to exist at that point.
Max. it’s a simple question:
Are you comfortable with PP selling baby parts or not?
That they are doing so is not in dispute.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/this-wasnt-an-abortion-cnn-forces-anti-planned-parenthood-group-to-admit-fiorina-was-wrong/
“David Daleiden, the project lead Center for Medical Progress’ anti-Planned Parenthood campaign, admitted on Wednesday that an alleged fetus on a table that GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina described during a graphic anti-abortion rant was actually from a miscarriage.”
Davidm
You remain in an extreme minority regarding this situation. Lots of things were accepted, de rigeur, and even the law of the land in the past. However, we evolve. It’s a Darwinian thing. You’re either on the bus or off the bus. There is always hope. There will always be another bus coming along.
There are communities in upstate New York where people live extremely backward lives. The women do only what is prescribed, the men rule with an iron fist, the children spend almost all their time studying religious books-so much so that they are way behind the state standards vis a vis education and in this country that is way behind, and life is serene, safe, and happy; as long as you do what you are told. Of course they don’t enjoy the Florida winters.
issacbasonkavich wrote: “You remain in an extreme minority regarding this situation.”
Spoken like a true elitist of the noble class.
It really depends upon what part of the country you live in. In Kentucky, 75% of the voters voted against gay marriage. Even in liberal California, Proposition 8 was voted in by the people. Where the issue has been losing is in the federal courts. The elitist judges disregard democracy and rule according to what is right in their own minds.
You constantly want to marginalize me, but I know that I speak here for millions of people.
Anyone’s assertion that the prohibitions against same sex marriage was compatible with the law of the land, the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constituation, is wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that these prohibitions were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Slavery also was not compatible with the Constitution, while being the so called “law of the land” for over a hundred years.
Annie wrote: “The Supreme Court ruled that these prohibitions were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Slavery also was not compatible with the Constitution, while being the so called “law of the land” for over a hundred years.”
Actually, slavery was compatible with the Constitution before post Civil War Amendments. The Supreme Court also ruled that it was in Dred Scott. It went further and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and that people of African descent could not be citizens. That was a deplorable decision and nobody should listen to it. In the same way, Obergefell is a deplorable decision and nobody should pay it any mind except for the parties involved.
david writes: “Actually, slavery was compatible with the Constitution before post Civil War Amendments. The Supreme Court also ruled that it was in Dred Scott. It went further and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and that people of African descent could not be citizens. That was a deplorable decision and nobody should listen to it. In the same way, Obergefell is a deplorable decision and nobody should pay it any mind except for the parties involved.”
Good points regarding Dred Scott and Obergefell being decided by the Supreme Court. Yet, on what bases were they even decided by the Supreme Court?
First, the Bill of Rights were never meant to apply to the States. Right? Yet, somewhere in the Constitution, SCOTUS found that some rights are enforceable at the state level through what is called incorporation doctrine, whereby certain rights are incorporated to limit the states’s authority through the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Justice Scalia, the purist himself for all you strict constructionists out there who think otherwise, agrees with this principle. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010) [selectively incorporating the Second Amendment to limit state regulation].) I don’t see anything in the Second Amendment or elsewhere in Constitution mandating applicability to the States. Do you?
Secondly, Dred Scott was clearly able to sue in federal court by way of “diversity jurisdiction” (two folks domiciled in different states are able to sue in federal court if the amount in controversy passes a threshold), pursuant to Article III, sec. II of the federal Constitution, except for the fact that he was a slave, “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” That is, the majority of the Court agreed that the property right of Scott’s owner to him as chattel could not be extinguished by the property itself or Scott’s physical location in a free state. That’s a very sanitary conclusion avoiding the immorality, but just the same it’s reasonable. Because Scott was merely property and not a man, he had no standing to sue in federal court. Because the Court ruled Scott had no standing, the case was , but to arrive at that conclusion the Court used substantive due process to find a radical fundamental freedom to one’s own property which supersedes federal law (here, the Missouri Compromise).
Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion, according to Justice WO Douglas if I recall correctly, reflects the first use of substantive due process, and resulted in a radical form of liberty of contract. Taney wrote, “[t]hus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.”
The Dred Scott decision may or may not have been the correct one. I certainly would have not found property rights supersede a human being’s rights or federal law, but many people, from Maryland to Texas thought it was the right decision. (And there was no Equal Protection Clause in 1857.) What does this mean in terms of the Obergefell decision?
Obergefell is similar in its use of substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause to decide a case that would be controversial no matter the result, but the majority of the Court ruled Ohio didn’t have a good enough reason to prohibit the marriage. You don’t like it. I do.
It’s not that Dred Scott and Obergefell were both bad decisions. It’s that both were determined using substantive due process And both decisions were justifiable by the majority, but neither made everyone happy. Ultimately, it depends on what side you are on.
stevegroen – much as I usually agree with you, I think Dred Scott and Obergefell were both bad decisions. In Scott they decided that a certain type of man was chattel and in Obergefell they legislated from the bench. Obergefell is not over and will not be over for some time and the SC made it worse.
Paul writes, “stevegroen – much as I usually agree with you, I think Dred Scott and Obergefell were both bad decisions. In Scott they decided that a certain type of man was chattel and in Obergefell they legislated from the bench. Obergefell is not over and will not be over for some time and the SC made it worse.”
As OW Holmes, Jr., stated, “We’re not last because we’re right. We’re right because we’re last.”
“[L]egislated from the bench” is a fashionable term, but SCOTUS has to determine disputes rather than make law. In both Scott and Obergefell SCOTUS decided the dispute from the perspective of fundamental rights, something a legislature does not do.
Taney’s opinion found a fundamental right to one’s own property regardless of contrary congressional legislation. Obergefell found a fundamental right regardless of contrary Ohio law. It’s much more than political, self-serving maneuvers from elected officials, though clearly within the constitutional context it is an act of social engineering, sometimes destructive and sometimes not.
Slavery uses to be the law of the land.
Women not voting or owning property used to be the law of the land.
Segregation used to be the law of return land.
Who cares what it used to be? There is no evidence that our moral standards were higher, better, stronger in the old days. Quite the contrary.
It’s not that complicated. If you are a judge or a government employee, your position, your job, trumps your religion. Don’t like your job? Go get another one, maybe working for your church.
Christians aren’t going to jail for being Christian, they’re going to jail for breaking the law. Big difference.
phillyT wrote: “If you are a judge or a government employee, your position, your job, trumps your religion. Don’t like your job? Go get another one, maybe working for your church.”
A wise person would recognize an evil law if it forces people to violate their God given conscience. Therefore, the law is what would need to change.
In this case, there is no law being violated. There is an opinion of the Supreme Court, which does not make law. While common law may develop through a series of decisions, a single case of the Supreme Court does not make law. We should ignore the Obergefell decision in regards to their general mandate that exceeds their Constitutional authority. To do otherwise would be irrational.
phillyT wrote: “Christians aren’t going to jail for being Christian, they’re going to jail for breaking the law. Big difference.”
No, Kim Davis broke no law. She did not go to jail for breaking the law. She was never even charged with breaking the law. But even if she did, then sometimes there is a problem with the law. We should be wise and recognize that, and correct the errant law.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian who went to jail for breaking the law because the law was against his conscience. We would do well to learn from history. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote: “One day the South will recognize its real heroes. … They will be young high school and college students, young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’s sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American dream and the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage.” He also said he was in the good company of John Bunyan who said, “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience.” Unfortunately, many activists and lawyers today do not understand what the conscience is. One commenter here likened it to believing in fairy tales. How sad. Kim Davis is following her conscience. She is the true hero in the tradition of men like Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Back before Obergefell, the commenters here claimed that no Christians would go to jail if the Supreme Court ruled for gay marriage. I warned them that they would. Now they sing a different tune.”
David, you are making stuff up. I recall commenter’s here sayong that no CLERGY persons would be going to jail for refusing to marry gays. That is quite different than a civil servant who is denying others their civil rights going to jail for contempt of court. I’ve heard you trot out this canard a few times now and it’s time someone called you on your penchant for twisting and spindling.
david2575
Where is the congressional investigation of this fraud! Where is Trey Gowdy? Where is Daryll Issa? Where is Ted Cruz? The Republicans are obviously in favor of abortion since they are not investigating federal payments for abortions! Thank you for setting us straight. Will you please contact my congressman? I will not stand for this travesty.
Thank gawd we have well informed people like you to save us from the lies and corruption of the lazy abortion loving Republicans who have allowed these abortions to happen without a single word in opposition. Obviously, they think we are a bunch of fools who haven’t caught on to this fraud being perpetrated on us.
Thank you again, David, for keeping us informed of the Truth.
Mike wrote: “Where is the congressional investigation of this fraud!”
Mike, the funds are fungible. Anybody who has operated any kind of organization knows how these things work. There is nothing to investigate.
The point is that Planned Parenthood pushes an ideology and should be privately funded. Our Congressmen and Senators were not elected to spend our money for pet projects like Planned Parenthood. The truth is that there are private organizations doing a much better job than Planned Parenthood. Also, there are plenty of people who believe in the Planned Parenthood mission to support it without the help of government. This was the argument used during our founding to stop funding churches. The same argument applies to organizations like Planned Parenthood. What they do is none of the business of government or the taxpayer. Let there be a wall of separation between Planned Parenthood and the State.
David, please do not be a know it all. PP is one of the most highly regulated of health care providers. Every cent of money coming in to PP is accounted for. You spread misinformation with much authority, based on what is anyone’s guess. I watched every minute of that 5 hour hearing yesterday.
Annie, if you read the Hyde Amendment, you will see exceptions whereby federal funds can be used to pay for an abortion. All an abortion provider has to do is sign a form saying that a woman is clinically depressed from her pregnancy, and then federal funds can be used to pay for it. Tiller would do this all the time in order to get paid for his business of aborting babies.
“Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician.”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/142
David
Sorry, the Constitution protects me from religion. Otherwise every nut case religious fanatic of any faith would be interfering with my freedoms. Freedom of religion is the freedom to choose which faith one wishes to believe in, not the power of one faith over others including those who decide not to believe in any particular fairy tale. You are wrong again David. Kim Davis is a religious fanatic imposing her peculiar beliefs on others. This is not a case of her and her business be it cake baking or flower arranging but our business, the business of all Americans, irrespective of faith. There is no other American interpretation. If America is the land of the free, that is. She should find a country where the government is run according to her religious beliefs. In America belief and faith in some god is not a prerequisite for participating in the society. Thank god.
On the other stuff, read the earlier news bulletins. Davis refused at first the compromises she later accepted. Then she still caused trouble. She should be free to go to her church and participate in whatever ceremonies and rituals she likes. However, when she goes to work in a public building for the public as an agent of the government, she does not have the right to persecute others because of her beliefs. If you disagree then you stand alone or with a very very few.
Lisa N.
The gay couple have no right to impose their desires on a religion. A religion is outside of the civil government which either grants them the right to legally marry or not. However, the law, the secular law, the law which protects religions, acknowledges gay rights to marry under the protection of the civil rights of marriage, with its benefits in a civil ceremony or other accommodating one. The two are not connected unless permitted by the specific religion. Under the law, one marriage is legal and is the right of the couple.
In the hearts and minds of some Muslims and Christians gays should be stoned to death. It is our law that protects them. Our law protects the victims of religious fanatics. Kim Davis is a religious fanatic. This seems like it should take no explaining, but here we are.
issacbasonkavich wrote: “Kim Davis is a religious fanatic imposing her peculiar beliefs on others. ”
Peculiar beliefs? Her doctrine about gay marriage has been the law of this land since its founding! Your attempt to marginalize her is a total fail.
issacbasonkavich wrote: “She should find a country where the government is run according to her religious beliefs.”
Well, that was this country until the homosexual activists hijacked the federal government.
issacbasonkavich wrote: “On the other stuff, read the earlier news bulletins. Davis refused at first the compromises she later accepted.”
I do not rely upon your propaganda sources. I go to original source documents. I read the court documents. Obviously you did not.
issacbasonkavich wrote: “… when she goes to work in a public building for the public as an agent of the government, she does not have the right to persecute others because of her beliefs.”
The courts have ruled that Constitutional rights are not shed when a person goes to work for government. You have a warped atheistic view of government. Your vision of an atheist government will never be realized here. And exactly how is Kim Davis persecuting anybody? Because people like you refuse to take her personal name of authorization off of the marriage license? Kim Davis is the one who is being persecuted. She is the one who went to jail over this.
Professor, there is no quandary here. Democrats are quite capable of sustaining complex thoughts and understanding that with people like the pope, there can be things we like and dislike about the man. It’s conservatives who can only think in absolutes.
I think perhaps it was not actually the pope, but more likely Chuck Norris in a dress, telling her to stay strong.
Not in that the church has supported man-woman marriage for centuries is not much of an argument for anything. The church has also supported child rape, subjugation and abuse of women, and slavery for centuries. Not a strong track record.
And much as they would deny it, the church’s position on abortion was not always absolute.
Let’s face it, the church’s continued opposition to birth control even for disease prevention, contributes to the illness and death of thousands.
Mike, now it’s my turn to be typing while you posted your comment, lol.