Francis and Kim Davis
It's an edifying story.
Pope Francis met privately in Washington last week with Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who defied a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, adding a new element to an American tour that saw Francis attract huge crowds and articulate left-leaning positions on poverty, immigration, the environment and inequality.
On Tuesday night, her lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, said that Ms. Davis and her husband, Joe, were sneaked into the Vatican Embassy by car on Thursday afternoon. Francis gave her rosaries and told her to “stay strong,” the lawyer said. The couple met for about 15 minutes with the pope, who was accompanied by security guards, aides and photographers.
“I put my hand out and he reached and he grabbed it, and I hugged him and he hugged me,” Ms. Davis said Wednesday in an interview with ABC News. ‘Thank you for your courage.’”
“I had tears coming out of my eyes,” she said. “I’m just a nobody, so it was really humbling to think he would want to meet or know me.” - NYT
As most Catholics know, Pope Francis is against same sex marriage, so his encouragement to Kim Davis shouldn't surprise anyone.
“It was like touching the face of Jesus. I mean that.
He is a very warm, spiritual, loving man and he has the heart of Jesus.”
The Holy Father also received Mary Jo Copeland, a local woman who has dedicated her life to serving the poor.
*I say 'this just in' because the Vatican finally confirmed the meeting between the Pope and Davis.
I still love Francis...unlike some people I don't have to like everything he does to love him and respect his "office."
ReplyDeleteHowever, Francis if events unfolded as her lawyer says they did (I doubt it as both the Davis and her lawyers have shown to be very interested in manipulating the facts and the Davis in particular are looking way too comfortable being "infamous." they are hard at work on one thing, trying to extend her 15 minutes ) is wrong here. Besides calling the lawsuit everything it is, "forlorn," "obtuse," and "absurd." the Governor said, Kim Davis herself has no power or authority to issue marriage licenses..its the office that does that and she is filling the role. She still has her religious freedom and she shout from the rooftops that gay marriage is bad.. but in her elected position she has to follow rule of law. She is not signing the documents "Kim Davis, rather ignorant hillbilly," but Kim Davis, Court Clerk..its the office.
I think that the Pope probably was giving her personal credit for what she believes, not neccessarily supporting her not performing the function of her office. I also think he does not really understand the minutia of how our government works.
Again, I love the Holy Father and how he is trying to turn a creaky bureaucracy from the Middle Ages, around, but he has no say in our laws and how the govt. works. Good for him to provide moral support from a very confused and ignorant woman.
Hello, Mack!
ReplyDeleteHere is the problem.
Because the government are declaring all unions equal, i.e. the same, we are now all bound to mouth this new 'truth' or be threatened with being fired, sued, impoverished, imprisoned. That is the way things are working out.
It is as if a local school board required all its teachers to affirm they believe in homunculi fertilization. An English teacher might go along since it isn't in his/her purview. A biology teacher might go along to save his/her job. But some biology teachers might object since they know for a fact it just aint so. These people's freedom of conscience is being violated.
This is the problem when the governments put their stamp of approval on fallacies, like husband-wife sex and castro-district sex being the same or of equal dignity. Most people know that it's not true.
Sorry, not here to argue Gay Marriage...we are talking about the Pope and Mrs. Davis. However, where in any kind of world are you bound to agree with a law because its in place? Taxes...don't like em, mouth of about it all the time but I pay em..(or go to jail.) Ms. Davis can say everything she wants to say about gay marriage outside of her office. She cannot decide which laws she will obey.
DeleteAnd just a suggestion if you get into debates of this nature in the future...there is a variety of gay loving sexual relationships that arent "castro-district sex." That would be like me comparing husband-wife sex to swingers, orgies, extra marital affairs, or maybe like the story I just read...(and I think it was in Kentucky beleive it or not) of a step father, marrying his step daughter (that is after the straight guy has been sexually abusing her for years) keeping her under his control and cut off from everyone (but you know, its a good husband and wife, open to procreation type thing) who then proceeds to kill her little step brothers as they are taking attention away from her. See how absurd that is???
Hello again, Mack!
DeleteI have to take issue with your 2nd paragraph statement: "there is a variety of gay loving sexual relationships that arent "castro-district sex."
This is precisely the big lie which we are all being coerced to swallow and applaud while we swallow. Have you personally ever known a homosexual couple that has waited, remained virgins, prior to 'tying the knot'? Really! I am asking you a yes or no question!
I suspect that Making an attempt to do something similar to the above, i.e. restricting sex to one 'same-sex partner without relying upon an occasional third party to spice things up is not something normally seen.
Even if you were to find such a couple, wouldnt they be a poor imitation of what our Lord described as a male-female, non-sunderable,-God=instituted relatioinship?
Mack, another problem is that the Supreme Court has the power to strike down a law found to be unconstitutional but lacks the power to create an affirmative law. That's why, on appeal, case law is either found to be valid or the case is remanded back to the court that made the erroneous ruling for retrial. The state of Kentucky hasn't amended its law on marriage and Kim Davis is bound to follow state law. Also, it would be simple to amend state law to remove the name of the clerk from the document, which would remove her objection to having the form used by others.
ReplyDeleteState-sanctioned sin is still sin.
No Nan, you have been reading too many conservative sites...its called Judicial Review...
Delete"..The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations. (Like say, marriage equality which wouldnt have been thought of in the Founding Father's Day.)
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."
The State is not in the business to decide what is sin or not. That is what your faith and your consience is there for..so if you find gay marriage a sin....you know the rest.
But the objective of those who wanted to redefine marriage is to define their sin away. The state cannot do that. We had been told for years that the state couldn't legislate morality, yet here it is, legislating morality, telling us that two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman. They're not Mack, no matter how badly you want it to be so.
DeleteNan, I really like you so I am not trying to be sharp with you on this, where ever did you get that idea? How on earth would anyone with an ounce of common sense think that? Do you understand that a lot of people in this great country of ours are atheists or belong to a denomination which accepts gay marriage or don't particularly think about religion or, believe that Church "tradition," is influenced by the cultural preconceptions at that (funny that the Church rails against changing doctrine because of society influence when society and cultural influence helped shape doctrine at that time) and don't believe it is a sin. So frankly, most people pushing for gay marriage don't really give a damn about that...its the religious right who are so narcisstic that they believe the world revolves around them and they are the ones who cannot grasp that they cannot longer influence law or culture by screaming sin. We live in a secular society and the laws are secular..that doesnt stop anybody from practicing their faith but it does stop them from pushing their faith on others, which is what Mrs. Davis is doing with hers.
DeleteNo Nan, the objective of people who want gay marriage is, for the most part, the ability to participate and have the same legal benefits as everyone else to protect their loved ones and their families. There are people who want the recognition but thats from their family and friends, not Kim Davis or Mike Huckabee or Preacher John or from you or me. There is a percentage who admittedly want it for political purposes and a big f*ck you to the people who have been in charge for so long, but os what, that happens with every movement.
And Nan, I do not want to tell you that two people of the same sex are the same as a man and woman...they are different (thank God, I have no desire to play and mimic the straight role model thing if there even is one) but I do want the same legal protections and fair game as a man and a woman..again, its about the law of the land, not the Church. And no , I do not want badly for my partner to be a woman or for me to be one or whatever crazy thing certain straight people think gay people think.
Anyway, I bow out of this conversation as I am Florida bound t,o what a koinky dink, attend a gay wedding! Believe me I do not want to goas I love the midwest in October and I think gay weddings are stupid.but since we are going we might as well stay for a while.(I think we should be free to have em, I think an actual wedding is just goofy!) But, it makes those crazy kids happy so who am I to judge???
Maybe that's true of you but keep in mind, you say you're a nice Catholic guy but your lifestyle is that of mortal sin - you want it both ways. You can't in fact be Catholic and live with a man in an active gay relationship and raise children together - these are things you've posted yourself. You say you have a husband and once you did so, you excommunicated yourself and your soul is in peril.
ReplyDeleteOur rights come from our creator and never in the history of the world has marriage ever been defined as two men or two women until now. It's a perversion of the word marriage.
We were told just be tolerant. We were told that all gays wanted was a civil union, which did, in fact, provide the same rights as marriage. We were told that Christians wouldn't be targeted. All of that was lies. You may not have lied about the objective yourself, but the fact remains the gay lobby lied, and continues to lie.
The greatest percentage seem to want to redefine marriage as a big f*ck you to those with morals. And yes, they do want the recognition from everyone; that's why Christians are being targeted, simply to punish them for not going along with the perverted agenda.
"The greatest percentage seem to want to redefine marriage as a big f*ck you to those with morals. And yes, they do want the recognition from everyone; that's why Christians are being targeted, simply to punish them for not going along with the perverted agenda."
ReplyDeleteAmen! The ultimate goal of the homosexual lobby, imo, is to have the Church accept their so-called "marriage unions" as normal and acceptable. Never gonna happen. Every time this issue rears its ugly head I remember what was said about abortion. "Only in the case of rape or incest or if a mother's life is in danger." BS!
Now, abortion is anything goes from conception to one day before that innocent baby is born. Yes, it might be the law of the land but the Church and her children answer to a higher authority. And yes, there are those who undermine the Church from the top down but it's on them when they stand before the Lord just like it will be on all of us come the Day of the Lord.
I am of the opinion that once the homosexual lobby got their foot in the door ... they now are pushing for it to be swung wide open regardless of those who would oppose it. Their goal is to silence anyone who speaks against these unions through intimidation and using the courts to sue folks who are merely claiming their right to conscientious objection. The sad thing is too many of us are too comfortable, well fed, lazy and fat to give a s***. I think it goes something like this, " I am not affected by all of this "gay marriage stuff" so I don't care if it ain't hurting or killing anyone." Blah ... blah ... blah.
I for one am glad our Holy Father visited with Ms. Davis. A seed has been planted and one that can never be trampled upon no matter how hard the other side is gonna try.
I will have to reconsider what this all means as far as the "visit" between the Holy Father and Ms. Davis goes. Since the Vatican has "clarified" via Fr. Lombardi, that she and her husband were just among many folks who greeted Papa Francis that day, I still think it was a good thing but then again many are commenting on his student and the student's boyfriend.
ReplyDeleteAh well...have a great weekend everyone! I am gonna snooze through it all. ^^