The Facts About Pope’s Meeting With Kim Davis

Big news this week as “progressives” worldwide learned, to their utter shock and mournful consternation, that the pope is Catholic. Rumors are they will next examine wild bears, the woods and certain mysteries therein.

On Wednesday, the Vatican confirmed what a handful of us knew days before. Pope Francis secretly (and privately) met with Kim Davis at Washington’s Vatican Embassy to personally offer his broad support for her bold stand against that insidious and “intrinsically disordered” counterfeit called “gay marriage.”

Does Pope Francis really support Kim Davis?

While specifics of Davis’ legal case were not discussed during the private meeting, days later Pope Francis publicly affirmed Kim’s “human right” as a “conscientious objector” to refuse to sign her name to “gay marriage” licenses – even in her official capacity as an elected official. This human right, incidentally, is an unalienable right protected by the First Amendment. “Stay strong,” the pope told Kim after the two embraced during the tearful meeting. He thanked her for her courage and asked her to pray for him. She likewise asked him to pray for her. These facts are not in dispute.

On Friday, the Vatican issued another statement to clarify what was, or, better still, was not, discussed during the meeting: “The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” said Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi.

As Austin Ruse of notes, “The Vatican spokesman chose his words carefully. By stating that the meeting should not be considered support for her position ‘in all of its particular and complex aspects,’ Lombardi is allowing the notion that the meeting can be understood as general support for Davis’ cause, but not necessarily papal support for every detailed aspect of the legal case.”

Indeed, neither Kim Davis nor anyone on her legal team ever suggested that the pope supports, or is even aware of, “her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.” Still, based upon his own words and the official position of the Catholic Church, we can know, for sure, of at least three “positions” on which the pope does support Kim Davis. They are: 1) Homosexual behavior is sin; 2) Marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman; and 3) No “human person,” whether a government official or not, should be forced to violate his or her conscience by affirming sin-based “gay marriage.”

Who asked for the meeting?

There has likewise been much speculation and liberal wishful thinking as to how this meeting came about, with some pundits desperately clinging to hopes that the pontiff was “actually swindled into meeting Kim Davis.”

Let’s end the speculation.

Vatican officials reached out, unsolicited, to Davis through her attorney, Mat Staver, and arranged the meeting out of the blue before Pope Francis even arrived in the U.S. for his whirlwind tour. The Davis team was led to believe that the request came from the pope himself. Not only did Pope Francis know who Kim Davis was when he told reporters on the plane ride home that conscientious objectors have a “human right” to decline participation in sodomy-based “marriage,” he had personally met Kim privately, and embraced her both physically and ideologically before he did so.

The meeting was temporarily kept “secret” during the pope’s visit so as to avoid the predictable media circus that would, and later did, ensue. Both Davis’ representatives and the Vatican agreed that news of the meeting would be released upon the pope’s departure. He wasn’t “embarrassed” by the meeting, as some have suggested, but, rather, held it discreetly for logistical reasons alone.

What does the pope believe about homosexuality and “gay marriage”?

While protestant Christians obviously don’t agree with Pope Francis and the Catholic Church on everything, all faithful Christians, both protestant and Catholic alike, are nonetheless indebted to him for validating Kim’s courageous obedience to God. By extension, the pope has likewise validated every other Christian who refuses to be forced to participate in, or otherwise affirm, this sinful pagan rite. “Gay marriage” is an affront to Christ, the Church and God’s natural order. No faithful believer who wishes to remain in obedience to God can have anything to do with it.

But why? Why is “gay marriage” an affront to God? Why must Christians oppose it?

While the reasons are manifold, it seems most wish to avoid the primary issue surrounding any discussion on “same-sex marriage.” That is, the fundamental wrongness of homosexual behavior itself. If homosexual behavior is not wrong, as it goes, then what justification is there for refusing to redefine marriage around it?

But it is wrong. It’s always, and in every way, wrong.

So says the pope.

So says the Bible.

And, most importantly, so says the very Creator of marriage itself.

On the question of homosexual sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a clear and biblically sound summation: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

And so Kim Davis refuses to approve them.

Despite progressives’ best efforts, there’s simply no way to get around words like, “intrinsically disordered” and “grave depravity.”

As for those who struggle with same-sex attraction and define their identity as “gay” or “lesbian” based upon these aberrant temptations and proclivities, the Catechism adds, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

“They” must be accepted. Their disordered and sinful behavior must not.

On progressives’ push for “gay marriage,” Pope Francis has said, “The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.”

“Gay marriage” is inherently sterile – a dead end.

“Children have a right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity,” the pope has added, further calling all attempts to impose “gay marriage” on society “ideological colonization which are out to destroy the family.”

“The complementarity of man and woman … is the root of marriage and family,” he observes.

Amen, pontiff sir. Amen.

On Sept. 24, after Kim Davis and Pope Francis met privately, I had the distinct privilege of joining Kim and her husband, Joe, for dinner. In addition to sharing the pope’s views on sexual morality, marriage and freedom of conscience, I saw firsthand that they likewise share the pope’s profound love and compassion for those afflicted by these “trials.”

Kim Davis is an accidental hero.

Pope Francis is to be commended for honoring her as such.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Disgusting: Obama Administration Enables ‘Boy Play’

God help us. Here’s what America’s newly homosexualized, “values neutral” military looks like.

Last week, in a strange fit of actual news reporting, the New York Times published an exposé revealing that, under this Obama administration, the Department of Defense is not only permitting the homosexual abuse of little boys at the hands of Muslim allies in Afghanistan, but is effectively facilitating it. A handful of U.S. servicemen have had enough and are courageously blowing the whistle on this unimaginably evil policy. Naturally, they’re being punished and drummed out of the service for doing so.

“Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population,” reports the Times. “The practice is called bacha bazi, literally ‘boy play,’ and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene – in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records. …”

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father, Gregory Buckley Sr., who recounted his conversation with the Times. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture,” Buckley added.

Isn’t multiculturalism peachy?

I sat down with Dr. Judith Reisman, research law professor and director of the Liberty Center for Child Protection, to discuss this shocking development. “Unfortunately, this has been going on for years, with the knowledge of our American government,” she told me. “I just received an email from one of my German child-protection colleagues. She included several links to violent torture films and photos of hundreds of real children being brutalized by animals in horrific scenes. There is no way the FBI, CIA, Interpol and all other policing agencies do not know about this, which is readily accessible.

“This is glamorization of ’50 Shades of Grey’ novels and films acted out on children, chained to beds, tortured, never to recover,” she added. “It’s a natural outgrowth of generations of Western ‘fee sex’ conditioning via the ‘sex science’ of violent bi/homosexual pedophile Alfred Kinsey in 1948 and his ‘pamphleteer’ Hugh Hefner, beginning in 1953. Kinsey’s claim he proved ‘children are sexual from birth’ has been supplemented by slow, devious conditioning of future generations through child pornography in Playboy. Can people be so brainwashed that they really believe we have always been so demonic?” she asks.

Indeed, Kinsey, though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.

Among other things, Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”

Yeah. Sounds like it.

Disturbing though this may be, what’s equally disturbing is that nearly all of today’s liberal “comprehensive sex education” curricula – such as that pushed by extremist groups like the National Education Association (NEA), Planned Parenthood and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) – is derived entirely from the criminally fraudulent, pro-pedophile “research” of Alfred Kinsey.

What’s even more disturbing is that, in addition to the DOD, Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has likewise embraced the debunked Kinsey sex-education model and has long pushed curricula based upon it.

You may recall, for instance, that during his first term, the Obama administration provided on the HHS “Questions and Answers About Sex” website a “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” section which, like Kinsey, outrageously claimed that “Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings … which is healthy and normal.”

And what do “sexual beings” do? Well, they have sex, of course. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this,” admitted the page.

You think?

So we shouldn’t be surprised in the least that, since Obama repealed the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy a few years back, not only have we seen a massive spike in male-on-male homosexual assaults in the armed services, we now discover that this administration is looking the other way as similar homosexual assaults are being perpetrated against children.

After all, “Children are sexual from birth,” right? They’re “born that way.”

And so are the men who rape them.

Don’t be a pedophobe, you bigot.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Donald Trump, Civility And Political Correctness

Full disclosure: As goes election 2016, I’m decidedly not in the Donald Trump camp. To compare Trump to Ronald Reagan, as some have done, is like comparing a Hostess Ding Dong to a seven course meal at Osteria Francescana. Though each may please the palate, the latter offers both substance and sustenance, while the former offers a quick endorphin fix and empty calories.

Trump is no conservative. He’s a big-government, tax-and-spend liberal who has spent most his life supporting Democrats and Democratic causes. Mr. Trump’s moral compass lacks due north. Its needle spins faster than Hillary Clinton on a Tilt-A-Whirl. Donald Trump believes what Donald Trump believes because he’s Donald Trump – not because what he believes has any basis in fact.

Like many liberals, the Donald is prone to engage in the ad hominem attack when pushed into a corner on questions of substance (e.g., a propensity to mock the physical appearance of his detractors). Such personal insults are shallow, juvenile and, rather than representing a challenge to the dictates of political correctness, show a boorish lack of civility and decorum.

Still, don’t get me wrong. In some ways, and like millions of Americans, I find Trump both endearing and entertaining. I believe his conventional-wisdom-defying rise in the polls can be attributed, primarily, to three things:

First, he’s anti-establishment. The conservative base of the Republican Party is sick of the GOP leadership’s empty campaign promises, gutless lack of resolve and failure to use all means at their disposal to rein-in Obama’s lawlessness and hold him accountable. Bringing John Boehner and Mitch McConnell into political combat is like bringing a wet noodle to a sword fight.

Second is Trump’s bold, often witty and always delightful smackdowns of mainstream media so marinated in leftist ideology and political correctness that they wouldn’t recognize objective journalism if it bit ‘em in the … well, you get the idea. (For a great analysis of this phenomenon, read Tristan Emmanuel’s short E-book, “Donald Trumps the Media.”)

Finally, and I think this is the big one, Mr. Trump has quickly come to both signify and personify Middle America’s utter disdain for all things politically correct. “I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness,” he told Megyn Kelly in the GOP’s first presidential debate. “And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”

Of course, not everyone agrees. In a recent op-ed titled “Civilities: The current rage about ‘political correctness’ is both wrong and rude,” Washington Post columnist Steven Petrow laments: “‘Political correctness’ has long been considered a pejorative, an accusation hurled at those of us who choose our words carefully so as not to insult others. …

“Language evolves all the time, and a change that allows individuals and groups to claim their own identity increases civility, which costs the rest of us nothing.”

Ah, moral relativism – the secular left’s escape pod from reality. “Language evolves all the time.” Get that? That’s Orwellian for, “Yes, we liberals understand that words have meaning. That’s why, when we don’t like the meaning of words, we arbitrarily invent and ascribe a new meaning to those words to suit our pseudo-utopian political ends – the truth be damned.”

Petrow continues: “Far from restricting debate, the language of political correctness has returned a new dignity to formerly marginalized groups.”

Far from restricting debate? A new dignity? Tell that to presently marginalized groups like Christians and conservatives who prefer to operate within the sometimes-jarring universe of objective reality, rather than the fantastical realm of Planet Progressivism. Tell that to Kim Davis – to the Christian baker, florist, photographer and other business owners who now face six-figure fines or even jail time for merely acknowledging the politically incorrect fact that marriage remains as it’s always been – the union of a man and a woman.

Like Trump often does, what Mr. Petrow has done here is to conflate political correctness with civility. These are two entirely different things. Political correctness is a barrier to truth and a doorway to tyranny. Its sole purpose is to silence dissent from leftist orthodoxy – to shut down open discourse and honest debate on the merits. Political correctness is marked by “progressive” wishful thinking, while actual correctness is marked by dispassionate truth.

And never the twain shall meet.

Merriam Webster defines “political correctness” as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”

The key words here are “offend” and “eliminated.” It should also be noted that “political sensibilities” is better described as “liberal sensibilities.” In other words, political correctness dictates that “language and practices” that “offend” liberals must be “eliminated.”

How uncivil.

“I’m sensing something in the air these days, and it’s unsettling,” continues Petrow. “At a recent dinner party, my host went on a rant about Caitlyn Jenner (whom she insisted on calling ‘Bruce Jenner’), which devolved, quickly, into a full-throttle tirade against being ‘politically correct.’”

Mr. Petrow’s reference to Jenner provides a wonderful opportunity to contrast political correctness with civility.

Politically correct version: “Caitlyn Jenner is a courageous woman who used to be a man named Bruce. She has transitioned to the woman she’s always been and is a wonderful role model for everyone, especially LGBT youth. She’s a hero. Off with the old, on with the new.”

Civil version: “Bruce Jenner is a mentally ill man who is pretending to be a woman. He has mutilated his body to appear feminine by adding artificial breasts, pumping himself full of synthetic estrogen and having cosmetic surgery. He ostensibly intends – if he has yet to do so – to have his genitalia destroyed as well. Bruce still has, and will always have, an X and a Y chromosome. He will always be male, and he will never be female. He is to be pitied rather than emulated. Bruce Jenner, and others who suffer from gender identity disorder, need psychiatric help, our sympathies and our prayers.”

As you can see, the politically correct version, though flowery and nice sounding, is completely untethered from reality, while the civil version, though jarring to those who choose to deny reality, happens to be true. Mr. Petrow calls America’s growing rejection of political correctness “unsettling.” I can see that. To folks who prefer the makeshift murkiness of relativism, the crystal clarity of absolute truth must be unsettling indeed.

And so back to Donald Trump. To the extent this intransigent GOP front-runner continues to hold the Republican establishment’s feet to the fire, debunk the myth of an “unbiased media” and undermine the postmodern concept of political correctness, I say, go get ‘em, big guy.

Beyond that – well, I’m just glad the primary isn’t Tuesday.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

‘Burn Kim Davis Alive!’

Mahatma Gandhi once said, “There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.”

He was partly right. Liberty of conscience is indeed sacred. There is, however, a higher court before which Mr. Gandhi – before which we all – will ultimately stand. It is Kim Davis’ inevitable turn in the dock at this Supreme of all supreme courts that drives her steadfast refusal to mock God through mock “marriage.”

Let’s set aside for a moment all the legal and political wrangling over religious freedom. What is it about Kentucky’s Kim Davis that really has secularists, even some misguided and ill-informed church-goers, yanking their hair out in clumps? It seems many don’t merely dislike this accidental civil-rights stalwart; they hate her with a white-hot hatred reminiscent of that levied against blacks during another civil-rights struggle.

It was Rosa Parks then.

It’s Kim Davis now.

Even so, while it may feel personal to them, it’s not. The “throw-Kim-Davis-in-jail!” crowd doesn’t hate this humble, non-assuming Christian wife and mother of four so much for who she is (though many elitists insist upon sophomorically deriding her as some kind of intolerant, backwoods hick); they hate her more for what she represents – for Whom she represents – and, most especially, because, while making her stand, she has been, to date, immovable.

After nearly a week in jail, Kim still didn’t budge. Neither will she resign. Neither should she resign. If she did resign, you see, the precedent would be set. They want the precedent set.

And that’s what’s got them steaming.

If Kim Davis steps down from her elected position as Rowan County clerk, it would represent exile through attrition for her and her fellow believers. Christ follower? Seeking elected office? Looking for a government job? Forget it. Christians need not apply. All the same, if you do apply, be sure to keep your mouth shut, your Bible closed and your First Amendment at home.

To Kim Davis and her supporters, this courageous stand represents unwavering faithfulness to the ultimate Law Giver. To her detractors, it represents stubborn indifference to the laws of man. (The law, incidentally, remains unchanged and on the books as codified. Sections 402.005 and 402.020 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes have yet to be amended by the legislature and, even now, restrict marriage to “the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman”).

Whatever your perspective, Kim’s stand is bold. It is that boldness that has at once encouraged biblical Christians and terrified secular-”progressives.” These things have a way of catching on, you see. This is how movements are born.

Before she was arrested, shackled and imprisoned by U.S. Marshals for her “crime” of conscience, Brian Beutler, senior editor of the New Republic, was among the torch-waving leftists demanding the government “throw Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in jail.”

“Any attempt to force her hand risks making her a bigger martyr on the religious right than she already is,” he wrote, “but that risk is small compared to the risk that allowing her to continue abusing her power without consequence will create a terrible precedent.”

And so she was thrown in jail.

It backfired magnificently. So much so, in fact, that Judge David Bunning suddenly and inexplicably walked back his contempt order and released her with no indication by Kim or her legal team that she intends to change her position one iota.

They aimed to make an example of her.

Instead, they made a martyr of her.

And she set the example for others to follow.

So, if jail won’t do it – if being thrown in jail won’t compel this brave woman to disobey God and violate her conscience – then what will?

They’ll have to burn her at the stake.

To be sure, and based on the scores of death threats both Kim and her attorneys continue to receive, it seems many would love to see just that. In fact, it’s exactly what the Week Magazine senior correspondent Michael Brendan Dougherty has suggested, if only satirically, in a column headlined, “Burn Kim Davis!”

“Any normal punishment [i.e., jail] rewards her with the comfort of solidarity from right-wing Christians, or her own sense of moral self-approval,” he writes. “Therefore the only way to avoid granting her such ‘martyrdom’ is to actually martyr her. That’s the really perverse thing about Christians who make a spectacle like this. The only way the state can really punish them is to inform them that their suffering is meaningless and proving that God doesn’t exist by sending them to the darkness of oblivion in torment. Justice Kennedy has issued his theological bull; let Kentucky officials in defiance of it be put on a pyre.”

Mr. Dougherty, a practicing Catholic, is being facetious, of course, and illustrating his point via reductio ad absurdum. Still, his point is well taken. Throughout the history of both Christendom and the United States, Christians have, with full knowledge and acceptance of the potential consequences, exercised a rich legacy of peaceful civil resistance to tyranny over conscience (e.g., Daniel, Mordecai, Christ’s apostles, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King Jr., et al.).

That’s exactly what Kim Davis has done. I suspect, as she sees it, she would sooner be burned at the stake than face the flames of hell. For that, she is to be both admired and emulated. Imagine the possibilities if thousands of clerks, judges, pastors, photographers, bakers, inn keepers, florists, parents and other believers across this great nation came together, dug in their heels and said, “No! I will not violate my Christian conscience. Do as you may. Throw me in jail if you must, but I will not call evil good and good evil.”

Indeed, throughout history, Christianity has been shown to both blossom and flourish when Christ followers are persecuted – when others attempt to quash their free exercise of faith.

In his “letter from the Birmingham jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. famously declared, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he explained. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

As it was with the national sin of systemic racism, there can be few things more “out of harmony with the moral law” than the inherently immoral notion of sodomy-based “marriage.”

We are at an impasse.

Something has to give.

And something will.

A revolution of passive resistance is at hand – another great awakening.

Christians will, once again, be “free at last.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Needed: A Million More Like Kim Davis

For the first time in American history, a woman has been imprisoned by the government for merely exercising her Christian faith. War has been declared on Christ and His followers.

And there’s no turning back.

Anti-Christian persecution is the civil rights cause of our time. The cultural Marxists in power have seceded from our constitutional republican form of government, with its Judeo-Christian moorings, and have supplanted, in its place, a secular-socialist oligarchy. Like Union troops hunkered at Fort Sumter, faithful Christians are now exiles in our own land. Anti-Christian “progressives” have demanded unconditional surrender, and federal Judge David Bunning has fired the first mortar.

Even as I write, a kind, soft-spoken and well respected civil servant of 27 years sits languishing, like some violent criminal, in a Kentucky prison. She is confined, indefinitely and without benefit of a trial, to a tiny cell. She is a political prisoner in a spiritual war. Like so many accidental civil-rights heroes that came before her, Davis, a Democrat who was overwhelmingly elected as Rowan County clerk, has peacefully and graciously refused to violate her Christian conscience. She has declined to sign her name to marriage certificates that defy God’s natural design for the timeless institution and has requested, as a simple accommodation, that either her name be removed from the marriage licenses, thus eliminating her personalized acquiescence to the Supreme Court’s novel attempt to usurp God’s authority and redefine this cornerstone institution, or, alternatively, “to allow licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County or [by] developing a statewide, online marriage license process.”

That’s it. Simple, reasonable and fair. Our nation has a rich history of respecting the rights of conscientious objectors; and Kim Davis, like tens-of-millions of her brothers and sisters in Christ, is exactly that.

“There is absolutely no reason that this case has gone so far without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis’ First Amendment rights,” said Mat Staver, Davis’ attorney and head of Liberty Counsel, a Christian civil rights organization.

“This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” Davis said on Thursday. “This is a fight worth fighting. … I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail.”

And so she has.

Reasonable people can disagree on the propriety of Kim’s actions. Some say that she was right in refusing to violate her conscience by signing her name to a legal document that presumes to solemnize that which God condemns. Still others say that she needs to either “do her job” or resign – that she took an oath and is violating that oath.

Nevertheless, all reasonable people must agree that imprisoning this innocent woman for her conscience is both an absolute outrage and gross violation of her constitutional liberties. Even the ACLU thought it was a bridge too far. The fact remains that people don’t shed their First Amendment rights when they become government employees. Kim Davis swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution and the laws of the Bluegrass state. When she took her oath, United States law, the Kentucky Constitution and the Kentucky Revised Statutes all reflected the millennia-old definition of natural marriage: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.”

The Kentucky Legislature has yet to change this law one jot or tittle. Instead, five left-wing extremist lawyers in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion presuming to move the goalposts mid-game. Court opinions are not “the law of the land.” Judges don’t make laws – only the legislature can do that. Kim Davis is not defying the law; she is upholding it as codified.

Accordingly, she has repeatedly asked, “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?”

Neither Judge Bunning nor anyone else can answer.

Because no such law exists.

In a statement on Friday, Mat Staver made the same point: “Not long ago 75 percent of Kentuckians passed the state’s marriage amendment. Today a Christian is imprisoned for believing what the voters affirmed: marriage is between a man and a woman. Five people on the Supreme Court imposed their will on 320 million Americans and unleashed a torrent of assaults against people of faith. Kim Davis is the first victim of this tragedy.”

Indeed, many scoffed at our warnings that Christians will someday be forced to either endorse “gay marriage” or go to jail. Well, scoff no more. That day has arrived. In just two months since the high court’s disgraceful Obergefell v. Hodges opinion, the full-on criminalization of Christianity has begun. You must either bow a knee before the false gods of same-sex “marriage” and “gay rights,” or face the fiery “contempt of court” furnace. We have moved from anecdotal instances of anti-Christian discrimination to systemic religious persecution.

Here’s the formula: 1) Force affirmation of homosexual behavior, abortion or some other institutionalized sin via judicial fiat; 2) Christian objects, refuses to disobey God and requests a reasonable religious accommodation; 3) Accommodation is denied and Christian is jailed for “contempt of court.”

You’re going to hear that term a lot in coming days, weeks, months and years – “contempt of court.” It’s the straw man charge that will be utilized to imprison not just Christian public officials, but others as well. Christian business owners, lawyers, private sector employees, parents of school-age children who don’t want their children indoctrinated by sexual anarchist propaganda and many others will be held in contempt of court, denied due process and incarcerated indefinitely.

The persecution isn’t coming.

The persecution has arrived.

And that’s what it means to be a Christ follower.

So pray for a million more like Kim Davis.

Become like Kim Davis.

Is she perfect? Certainly not. None of us is. Indeed, before Kim’s transformational Christian re-birth four years ago, she was thrice divorced and “played in the devil’s playground” for much of her life.

She was lost.

But now she’s found.

God has an amazing way of taking empty, broken vessels, rebuilding their lives and then using them mightily for His glory and honor.

Stand, like Kim, fearlessly, lovingly and boldly for Christ, declaring, as did the apostles when faced with a similar decision, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (see Acts 5:29).

Indeed, as the Bible’s Daniel, a “public official,” boldly refused to disobey God and commit sin by worshiping a pagan king, so too has Kim Davis honored our Lord by refusing to bow before a pagan court – by refusing to call evil good and good evil.

They wanted to make an example of her.

Instead, they made a martyr of her.

And awakened a sleeping giant in the process.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth