The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Kim Davis vs. Judicial Tyranny
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot.”

Charles Dickens gave that line to Mr. Bumble in “Oliver Twist.”

And it sums up the judgment of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis about the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, which said the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

Davis refused to provide marriage licenses to gay couples lined up at her clerk’s office and was sent to jail for five days by a federal judge for contempt of court.

Good for her. We need more like her.

For behind her defiance are more authoritative sources than the five justices who gave us Obergefell: the Old and New Testaments, Natural Law, two millennia of Christian teaching and tradition, and the entire body of U.S. federal and state law up to Y2K.

Moreover, Kentucky never enacted a law authorizing same-sex marriage. Nor did the Congress of the United States.

Whence, then, did this “law” come?

Answer: This is a creation of a Supreme Court that has usurped the legislative power to impose a secularist anti-Christian ideology on a nation, much of which still rejects it, but has no recourse against it.

A right to same-sex marriage was no more in the Constitution as written or amended than was a woman’s right to have an abortion.

The Court has lately been declaring to be constitutional rights that used to regarded as shameful crimes. This is judicial tyranny. And Kim Davis’ defiance is as old as the republic.

Recall, we were born in a rebellion against the tyrannical acts of a king and Parliament we did not elect.

President Jefferson ordered the release of all those convicted under the Sedition Act, declared that he would no longer enforce that Federalist-enacted law, and pronounced it a nullity.

When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared slaves were property and could not become citizens, Harriet Tubman ignored his Dred Scott decision, defied the fugitive slave laws, and helped slaves escape from her native Maryland.

Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs defied the Espionage Act of 1917 and spoke out against World War I. Convicted of sedition, he was sent to prison for 10 years under Woodrow Wilson, but freed by President Harding.

Throughout American history, industrial workers, civil rights and anti-war activists, and political dissenters have defied laws, ignored court orders, and gone to jail for contempt.

Rosa Parks broke the law in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back of the bus. Martin Luther King, a disciple of Gandhi, preached and practiced civil disobedience his entire life.

Now there is a statue on the mall and a holiday for King and talk of putting Tubman or Parks on America’s currency.

They are honored because their defiance of court orders and law-breaking were done in the cause of social progress.

But Kim Davis’ defiance of a court order was done because that is what God told her to do, and she wanted to be faithful to the beliefs she had embraced as an Apostolic Christian.

Yes, Virginia, there is a double standard.

In the 20th century, if you were breaking the law or violating a court order to protest segregation, Vietnam, or apartheid in South Africa, you got an indulgent press.

But if you were defying a court order to stop blocking integration at the University of Alabama or Little Rock High, or stop protesting too close to the local abortion mill, you got lectures on the “rule of law.”

Some conservatives say that Kim Davis as a public official has to carry out court orders, even those she believes to be immoral, or quit.

Yet the course she took has undeniably advanced her cause in our unending culture war.


For she rallied and inspired many with her witness, defiance and willingness to go to jail. She set an example of nonviolent resistance. She treated same-sex marriage not as some great social leap forward, but as a moral abomination. Many among the silent majority were surely nodding in approval.

She has also exposed the breadth and depth of the division in the country between an older Christian America and new Secular America.

Once, the Supreme Court could rely upon a residual respect for its proceedings, grounded in a belief that ours is a good government whose actions, even if we disagree, are rooted in principle and merit respect.

That reservoir of trust and good will is about gone.

Almost all of the civil and uncivil disobedience of the last half-century, from campus uprisings to urban riots to political protests, came from the left. But as an anti-Christian secularism becomes ascendant, dominant and imperious, rumbles are coming from right.

Indeed, from the raw politics of the Summer of Trump, it seems clear that Middle America has come to believe it has been had, and that the state that rules the nation is hostile to the country they love, and needs to be resisted and defied.

We are headed for interesting times.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2015

Hide 24 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right. I would like to add 2 points:

    1. Homopathy is not just repugnant to Christian morals, it is repugnant, period. There is no such “right” to gay marriage in the US constitution–I have read it many times and it just isn’t there. These loonies in robes just made that up and flat out lied and have made themselves the laughing stock of the world.

    NRO: “for an example of lawlessness, see the supreme court, not Kim Davis”

    2. 3 of the 5 Injustices who ruled in favor of this are Judaists. For various reasons, Judaists display a shocking low level of morality and high levels of depravity (Rev. Ted Pike has excellent articles on the sexual lives of Rabbis; also see the book: Sex, Lies and Rabbis by a Jewish woman).

    And this moral bankruptcy extends to homopathy among the Judaists, as they are the ones behind it for the most part, here:

    “Judaism & Homosexuality: A Marriage Made In Hell”, by Rev. Ted Pike:

    “Virtually every single homosexual rights organization in American history has been organized and run by a Jew”, as per:

    Also see: Here is a long list of Judaists who promote homopathy:

    Here are some photos of ritualistic sexual rape of Jewish boys by Rabbis shortly after birth:

    So we have the depraved in robes preaching “rights” to the rest of us. Only in America.

    P.S. You cannot be in contempt of a contemptible court.

  2. wow, I never realized how fucked up pat is till now hahahahaaaa.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    I sympathize with Kim Davis and see her as a courageous woman.

    But the idea of defying government laws based on religious faith is wrong.

    There is separation of church and state in US law.

    I mean suppose a Muslim government worker says he won’t deal with non-Muslim women who are not veiled. Suppose an Orthodox Jewish worker says he won’t deal pig farmers because they are ‘filthy’. Suppose a Mormon postal worker says he will not handle material sent by an adult entertainment industry because it offends his religious faith. That would be ridiculous.

    So, I think invoking religious liberty is wrong for this case.
    It is also wrong to compare Davis with black activists. Black causes in the past were guaranteed by the secular law of the Constitution. US was founded on principles of freedom and equality of man, so slavery was wrong. And racial discrimination that didn’t treat people equally was also wrong according to the founding principles of the US.
    But as US is about separation of church and state, it is wrong to say that someone who works for government should follow her faith than the law.

    So, why do I side with Kim Davis. I’m a secularist and atheist, but I can plainly see that, as Buchanan pointed out, this idiocy called ‘gay marriage’ is NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. It is crap made up by three Jewish judges, one part-Jewish judge(Sotomayor), and a moron Catholic(Kennedy). ‘Gay marriage’ is a crime against biology, decency, morality, common sense, and health. I would defend the freedom of homos to do their homo thing, but fecal penetration is a gross unhealthy act that leads to feces-stained penises and bloody anuses that can turn cancerous or stretched-out-and-oozing-with-pooce(poo juice).
    The idea that homosexuality should be given equal respect and acknowledgement as real/true sexuality is absurd. Also, if ‘marriage equality’ is really the principle of the land, ‘incest marriage’ and ‘polygamy’ should also be law; after all, both make more sense than ‘gay marriage’.
    Marriage is rooted in biology, history, morality, and responsibility. It is not some lifestyle game. So, the idea that something as ewwww as homosexuality and tranny-business should be associated marriage is downright disgusting. That would be like saying George Takei(aka Too Gay)’s fecal anus(that is regularly pumped by some homo white guy) is the sexual equal of Takei’s mother’s vagina that birthed him. It would be like saying Too-Gay’s large intestine filled with shit is of equal value as a ‘sex’ organ as Takei’s mother’s womb that developed a human life. The idea that a tranny’s fake ‘vagina'(that took place of his lopped off dick) is the equal of a real vagina of a real woman is ludicrous. This whole homo business is an affront to womanhood.

    Also, it is wrong for Buchanan to say this is a secular problem. Communist nations were officially secular but more anti-homo than any capitalist nation. Indeed, all the old communist parties were more anti-homo than a lot of Christian churches in the US that now showcase the homo flag. Jimmy Carter the peanuthead Christian says Jesus would have been for ‘gay marriage’. And if some pope in the future comes out for homo marriage, what will Buchanan say then?

    This homo business isn’t about secularism. It is a new quasi-religion. It is homotheism. Look at our culture, and it praises, sanctifies, and glorifies homos as saints, angels, heroes, demigods, and etc.
    Look how SE Cupp broke down and cried like a rapturous Evangelical when ‘gay marriage’ was passed by Supreme Court. And she is supposed to be ‘conservative’.
    At homo poo-ride parades, people fall into some kind of loony ecstasy and respond as if heaven opened up and is blessing mankind with manna and magic. News stories about homos always show some homo flag drenched in divine-looking sunlight.
    There is nothing rational or secular about this. It is neo-pagan homo-worship inflected with quasi-christian sanctimony, a kind of homotheism promoted by Jewish arch-bishops who control the media, academia, government, Hollywood, TV, advertising, and etc.

    So, we should make the case that the homo agenda is essentially a form of cult called homotheism. It is pushed like a religion. Those who criticize, condemn, or mock homosexuality are attacked like heretics.
    Humans are fallible, so all human groups should be open to criticism. Only God is infallible in any religion. But in our culture, we must talk about homos and trannies as if they are infallible and divine. We must speak in hushed tones or holy delirium. Even Eastwood mild mild mild joke about ‘Caitlyn whatever’ got censored.

    But then, this homotheism is the result of Judeotheism. Our society worships Jews as god-men. Mutter any heretical word about Jews, and you are condemned as an ‘antisemite’ which is like ‘devil worshiper’ who needs to be removed from society. Since Jews chose homos as their main partners in crime, those who worship Jews cannot condemn homos since it will displease homos, and of course, you are not supposed to displease god. In Europe, white nations must abolish themselves by welcoming masses of immigrants just to placate and appease the forever-holy-by-holocaust Jews. Germans always think Jews-as-gods are looking down on them at all times. Big Jew is watching them, so Germans want the world media to see them opening their arms to the invaders. They pray that Jews who are watching around the world will be so pleased with Jews.

    What Buchanan calls secularism isn’t. True secularism means open debate, freedom, criticism of everything, free speech, exchange of ideas based on liberty and inquiry. But anyone who questions or notices Jewish power or anyone who mocks or criticizes fruiters and trannies are hunted down as witches and banned from all centers of power in government, media, academia, and etc.

    We need to understand that there are religions but also quasi-religions. Anything can be religiously-worshiped(while real religions can be mocked as a joke: in Europe, anyone can make fun of Christianity but one must be solemn and somber in any discussion of the holy holocaust even though it was a historical event). Marx was worshiped by communists. Mao was worshiped by Maoists. (In that sense, even communism wasn’t truly secular in the Enlightenment sense of the term.) And in the US, Jews and homos are worshiped.

    Buchanan recently quoted Burnham who said something like liberalism is suicide of the west.
    Capital ‘L’ liberalism that pushes mindless PC dogma is just that.
    But true liberalism of freedom and open debate will be the savior of the West because we need to fight PC with freedom and liberty. Conservatism’s best ally is true liberalism that no longer exists in the power centers of America.

    Also, Buchanan needs to take into account the power of media and entertainment and social networking that reinforce conformism(as people don’t wanna be contrary in facebook and lose ‘friends’). Also, facebook favors certain issues. When homo marriage was made law, facebook made it easy to change one’s avatar to celebrate homo-worship. It was like what the Catholic Church did with tinted glass. Facebook allows one to tint one’s avatar with homo holiness.
    Because of the power of media/entertainment, 80% of millennials(the dumbest morons that ever lived) are for ‘gay marriage’.
    So, ‘gay marriage’ is as good as law, and only gradually, through courage and freedom can the homo agenda be rolled back, but in order for that to happen, all true conservatives and decent liberals need to boldly exclaim that JEWS DID THIS. As Joe Biden said, 85% of the homo agenda was pushed and promoted by Jews. And Jews as a group is most supportive of this New Normal since it ‘privileges’ minority elite power that complements Jews’ own elite supremacist power.

    If there is no way to reverse ‘gay marriage’ as law, maybe what decent folks can do is create a new concept(OUTSIDE the law and government) that means the bio-moral union of man and woman. This concept will be strictly defined as a union of a real man and a real woman. Because of its iron definition, homos and Jews won’t be able to tamper with it.
    And decent folks should be united in matrimony under this concept. And cakes meant for this occasion can’t be sold to homos since it will be defined as something entirely other than ‘gay marriage’. Since this concept will be cultural and social than legal, it can’t be touched by the law.

    And maybe ‘marriage’ as a word itself should be rejected as seen as something ‘gay’ and ‘filthy’.
    Let ‘marriage’ mean ‘gay marriage’. The new definition of ‘marriage’ among true conservatives could be ‘a once meaningful term denoting the union of man and woman in sexual partnership and commitment degraded and befouled by Jewish elites to further their supremacist agenda.’
    If ‘gay marriage’ cannot be reversed, then the whole meaning of ‘marriage’ has to be rejected since it has been contaminated. What decent man and woman want to join together in a union associated with sexual deviants whose idea of ‘sex’ is doing what George Too-Gay does: bend over to have his poophole pummeled by some ‘sexually’ icky fruit?
    I’m for the freedom of fruiters to be fruity, but they have no right to force us to praise them, celebrate them, and worship them.

    When most people had some sense of roots in history, heritage, nation, culture, and morality, they would have passionately and angrily rejected something like ‘gay marriage’.
    But globalism cut off one’s roots from history, heritage, culture, land, and race. So, there is no passion for most people to cling to. But people crave some identity, some loyalty, some spirituality.
    Since whites are denied their own nationalism, they now cuck themselves out to Jewish nationalism of Zionism. And since glib modernism destroyed spirituality and trash pop culture destroyed morality, the new faith for so many pop-culture-addled idiots is worshiping the homos who are presented as pure-as-snow angels and saints in the media and entertainment.

    To most American Libs, Jews are god and homos are the son of god. And trannies make the holy trinity.

  4. But Kim Davis’ defiance of a court order was done because that is what God told her to do, and she wanted to be faithful to the beliefs she had embraced as an Apostolic Christian.

    That can’t be true because God told me the Devil made her do it.

    I’m a tenther. I hold that the “supreme” court is an abomination and should be replaced by a jury. I regret that this country has devolved into a police state. But I am oppressed enough already without making Kim Davis a law giver.

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    Are you the guy from the Sonic drive-in commercial?

  6. Realist says:

    “But Kim Davis’ defiance of a court order was done because that is what God told her to do, and she wanted to be faithful to the beliefs she had embraced as an Apostolic Christian.”

    When Pat gets to thump’n his stupidity comes shining through.

    • Replies: @Realist
  7. Realist says:

    Stupidity was a poor choice of words. Goofiness is more appropriate.

  8. schmenz says:

    The only thing more depressing than watching someone going to jail for her sensible beliefs on the absurdity of aberro-“marriage”, is most of the responses to Buchanan’s article I have read here.

    • Disagree: Realist, Astuteobservor II
  9. Wilzard says:

    Freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to impose their religion on anyone else. Case closed. Nothing else needs to be our can be said that can change this fact. Grow up and accept the reality that not everyone believes the same thing, or the same way.

    Specifically, if Kim Davies’s religion makes her feel like she cannot issue marriage licenses then she should resign. Refusing to do her job due to her personal beliefs is immoral, because she does not have the right to unilaterally impose her belief on anyone else.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  10. Who has read the judgments of the court? My bet is none of the Commenters so far. And probably Pat Buchanan

    Can anyone say whether all the emotive blather on both sides is more than a waste of space. For all I have read from those passionately interested, which I am not, though I would not give gays the right to all the legal privileges marriage, and anyway not by that name, nothing tells me that the judges have closed off state legislatures from creating classes of marriage that apply to those who have or may try for children and those that do not for example. Can anyone tell me? If so, the rants against distinguished lawyers like Breyer are hard to justify unless you think judges should ignore trying to apply legal principles and methods and simply apply your ideology.

  11. Jason says:

    “Gay marriage” is a scam. Gay activists like Dan Savage will proudly say they don’t think monogamy makes sense for anyone, so this is just one more attack on normal, healthy family formation.

    But basing our opposition to it on a few Bible verses is silly. This isn’t a problem brought about by “secular” America.

    I am tired of Pat ignoring genes and science.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  12. @Jason

    everything is a scam.

    they are all designed to keep the masses busy hating each other instead of think for themselves.

    Stuff like gay marriage shouldn’t even be an issue. I honestly don’t understand why it is a national level issue.

  13. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    “Freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to impose their religion on anyone else.”

    Fair enough, but laws should reflect truth, morality, and decency.
    What ‘gay marriage’ does is impose deviant decadence on everyone.

    It is one thing for homos to be free to be homo and do their homo thing, but homos are now using the power of law to force all of society to praise, admire, and institutionalize what they do.

    If marriage is simply a matter of individuals deciding what it should be according to some libertarian whim, would you support ‘incest marriage’ too if a mother and her adult soon freely decided to get ‘married’? That too would and should fall under the rubric of ‘marriage equality’.

    But marriage associated with decadence, perversion, deviancy, and indecency is no longer a morally meaningful institution.

    The homo agenda has moralized immorality, and there can be no greater crime.
    In a modern liberal society, immorality need not be criminal. For instance, most instances of lying are not criminal. You sometimes lie, I sometimes lie, and everyone sometimes lies. Lying is generally immoral but it happens. It is wrong but not criminal.
    Okay. We should be free to lie. But suppose we are forced to believe that lying is telling the truth. In the name of ‘truth equality’, we are made to believe lies = truth. That would be end of meaning and real truth.

    Homos should be free to be homo. But their homo-ness can never ever be of equal value of real sexuality. Also, homo ‘sex’ between homo men is downright gross & putrid and homo ‘sex’ between lesbians is ridiculous.
    Let them do it, but why do we have to praise them, celebrate them, shut down entire cities to glorify them, and even change marriage laws to appease them?
    Using the law to morally institutionalize homosexuality is a form of insanity. George Takei’s poophole is the ‘sexual’ equivalent of his mother’s vagina that birthed him?
    Believing such nonsense is being ‘more evolved’?

    Why had this madness taken place? It’s because Jews promote the New Normal with their fellow minority elites to make us accommodate ourselves to the new standard of the normal majority being lorded over by the hostile minority.

  14. We definitely DO NOT NEED people like Kim Davis. Her duty is to uphold the laws of the Constitution instead of shoving her beliefs on others. By law, she is the Clerk, responsible for making sure the job is done in a timely manner and nothing else. If the job and her duties and responsiblities are abhorant, then she should resign as she would be incapable of fulfilling the position requirements.

    No one is preventing her from her free expression of speech (1st Amendment) but under the laws, she is in contempt and is subject to the rules of the court. A unilateral imposition of her views is against the laws of the Constitution and as such she should STFU and do what she needs to do one her time.

  15. Svigor says:

    I sympathize with Kim Davis and see her as a courageous woman.

    But the idea of defying government laws based on religious faith is wrong.

    There is separation of church and state in US law.

    Funny how Thomas Jefferson’s private correspondence is considered law in this instance, but nowhere else (say, when he stated there was an irreconcilable gulf between blacks and whites). His characterization of Amerinds as “savages” in the DoI is ignored as well.

    The law is there to keep organized religion’s hands off the state, and to keep the state’s hands off of organized religion. Not to force SCoTUS’ usurpation of power onto everyone.

    Then there’s the fact that the wall of separation is already breached by the gov’t’s involvement in marriage. The gov’t should give up its power to decide the outcomes of divorce, and other marriage issues; then it could claim the sanctity of the Wall.

    I mean suppose a Muslim government worker says he won’t deal with non-Muslim women who are not veiled. Suppose an Orthodox Jewish worker says he won’t deal pig farmers because they are ‘filthy’. Suppose a Mormon postal worker says he will not handle material sent by an adult entertainment industry because it offends his religious faith. That would be ridiculous.

    Suppose a Muslim, an Orthodox Jew, or a Mormon decide that SCoTUS doesn’t have the power they have usurped, because it has no basis in law.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  16. Svigor says:

    That said, I don’t think it should be a criminal or civil offense for a gov’t employee to refuse to carry out orders, as Davis did. She should simply be fired.

    • Replies: @Realist
  17. Realist says:

    It is obvious you have no idea what is going on…..she was elected.

  18. I love all these butt-hurt comments. None of these idiots who disagree with Buchanan have ANY problem with Obama’s defiance of the law and Constitution regarding amnesty! Such hypocrites. I’m hoping for thousands of Kim Davis’s! Tens of thousands! That’s what civil disobedience is! Defy the law! Shut down gay “marriage”! Shut down abortion! Shut down affirmative action! Shut down disparate impact! Shut down gun control! Shut down amnesty! Just stop obeying these unjust laws and judicial diktats! They can’t arrest ALL of us! We can break the system and take our country back!

    • Replies: @Realist
  19. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    “Suppose a Muslim, an Orthodox Jew, or a Mormon decide that SCoTUS doesn’t have the power they have usurped, because it has no basis in law.”

    You dammy, I agree with that, but the problem is that those who defend Kim Davis on the basis of ‘religious liberty’ are on weak ground cuz you can’t invoke religion in the duty of government.

    I say we need to oppose the homo agenda on moral and biological grounds, not on religious grounds.

    • Replies: @hoodathunkit
  20. Realist says:
    @Sam Houston

    “I love all these butt-hurt comments. None of these idiots who disagree with Buchanan have ANY problem with Obama’s defiance of the law and Constitution regarding amnesty!”

    Really? How the hell would you know that?

  21. @Priss Factor

    You dammy, I agree with that, but the problem is that those who defend Kim Davis on the basis of ‘religious liberty’ are on weak ground cuz you can’t invoke religion in the duty of government.

    Wrong. Davis is a constitutionally elected Clerk of the Court, she is obliged to carry out the (Kentucky) duties of administering that position. Kentucky law (§402.020 Other prohibited marriages.(1)(d) Between members of the same sex; still on the books) only recognizes ‘regular’ (traditional, biblical, etc) marriage, and mandates licensing by its courts. So that portion of the law is void per the federal court decision.

    What Davis (and a couple other clerks) objects to is the unchanged statutory requirement she put her own name on the document. She believes, perhaps reasonably, that her name on the license signifies her authorization and approval. She proposed the marriage license require another form of the same authority —court stamp, seal, etc— that did not give the appearance of the clerk’s personal approval.

    Adding insult to injury (more on that next) is the marriage license form is designed and issued by the Governor’s appointee. The form had to be redesigned anyway, as it contained the terms “bride” and “groom”; now legally “first party” and “second party respectively. Prior to the re-design, Davis and several other’s asked the line for the clerk’s name be changed; to their authority as “Clerk of the Court”, “Court of …”, etc. Both the governor and his appointee have refused. Davis claims there’s no problem issuing any or all legal marriage licenses under the Clerk’s or Court’s authority; just under her name.

    Notable is that the court decision came about, at least as soon as it did, because Kentucky’s Attorney-General, after a night of “prayer and consultation with his wife“said he could not continue defending Kentucky’s laws as a matter of conscience. Odd that he could refuse his legal obligations with no repercussion, but the clerks would be jailed for refusing theirs.

    If Kentucky, or any other state, issues licenses it’s clerks must process the paperwork. But one of Davis’ arguments is that requiring clerks to issue under their name —as opposed to under the states’ or courts authority— imposes a religious test or requirement. Davis claims with the form as it is, only a person approving of same-sex marriage can become a Kentucky clerk in good conscience.

  22. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Cloning no longer controversial.

    ‘Transhuman’ homos want it and have the funding of the high-tech oligarchs.

    The ultimate narcissism.

  23. Marais says:

    Thirty years after Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

    “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention..all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state…during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” [308]

    “…the American Clergy in general, without even excepting those who do not admit religious liberty, are all in favor of civil freedom; but they do not support any particular political system. They keep aloof from parties and from public affairs. In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion; but it directs the customs of the community, and, by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state.” [304]

    “The church cannot share the temporal power of the state without being the object of a portion of that animosity which the latter excites.” [310]

    “…in forming an alliance with a political power, religion augments its authority over a few and forfeits the hope of reigning over all.” [310]

    -Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 1832

  24. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    How can Christians stand up to Jomo Power?

    It’s great to be king.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS