No God, No Peace

The headline reads, "LGBT Group Burns Kim Davis With Billboard in her Hometown." "Dear Kim Davis," the sign reads, "The fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage." Then the ultimate irony: "Paid for by Planting Peace." Yes, that's right. The LGBT group PlantingPeace.org paid for the sign and considers this kind of attempt at public humiliation "planting peace". Nice.

Just in case you might be confused ... like the writers of the piece ... you have to know this makes no sense, right? Let's make it clear. At no time in all of history was marriage defined as selling your daughter for three goats and a cow. Never. If this is a definition, it requires that anything else (a daughter not sold for some amount) could not be considered "marriage". The fact that someone in the past might or might not have offered a dowry for a daughter does not define marriage. The fact that some married more than one wife did not define marriage. (If multiple wives defined marriage, then the man with only one was not married. That's how a definition works.)

In various times and various places and various societies marriage practices have varied. No doubt. No question. But practices are not a definition. You (I hope) are in the practice of wearing clothes, but you are not defined by wearing clothes. A naked human being is still a human being. On the other hand, in all times and all places and all societies the fundamental definition of marriage has never changed (despite the article's audacious claim that the definition is "ancient"). Never changed until the 21st century. And make no mistake, the Supreme Court was consciously aware that they were changing the definition.

You may disagree with Kim Davis. You may disagree with defining marriage as it always has been defined. You may favor tossing out that "longstanding, traditional definition" (in the words of the court case in California in 2008) and maybe even tossing out marriage entirely. But do not buy the absolute lie that the definition of marriage has been changed for a long time. Not much more than a half century, I'd guess.

Oh, and "You're stupid and we're hoping to shame you in public" isn't actually a valid way to "plant peace". Labeling hate and bullying as "planting peace" doesn't make it so.

On a related note
Only on a related note, Kim Davis is back at work today. She declares she won't interfere with her clerks issuing gay mirage licenses. Her objection was not that they would be issued, but that she would be issuing them. So much for the "She doesn't want to allow other people their legal rights!" argument. She was simply not willing to have her own Constitutionally-guaranteed right to the free practice of her religion violated. (I am not saying she was right or wrong. I'm saying that all those haters out there that claim that she was trying to impose her beliefs on them were wrong.)

On a related note
On an only sort-of related note, I just came across this story. Where was the moral outrage over this? Why weren't the "marriage equality" folks up in arms about this judge refusing to do marriages? Why weren't the Christians making death threats? Why is it that most of us didn't hear about it until now? (I'm saying it's "only sort-of related" because it is not as connected to Kim Davis as to the judge in Oregon.) (Note: The reason the Christians weren't making death threats is because genuine Christians don't.)

Postscript
I have to do this because of the slander and lies being thrown at me regarding what is written here. "Snopes says that story of the judge in Texas is not true, you dirty rotten liar!" Okay, let's see.

Question: Is the Tonya Parker story similar to the Kim Davis story?

Snopes answer: "Mostly False"

How?

The Facts:
Tonya Parker, a female judge in Texas (before the Supreme Court redefined marriage and it was still marriage in Texas) refused to perform marriages. Her position: "I don't perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn't apply to another group of people."

So, is it false that the Tonya Parker story is the same as the Kim Davis story. Yes, yes it is false.

Differences:

1. Tonya Parker was a judge refusing to practice legal marriage ceremonies in her state. Kim Davis was not a judge, but refused to issue "legal" marriage licenses in her state (actually, county). (I put "legal" in quotes there because the Kentucky Constitution still had marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman.)

2. Tonya Parker was refusing on the basis of "marriage equality"; Kim Davis was refusing on the basis of the First Amendment.

3. Tonya Parker ensured the legal marriages could take place by sending them to other judges; Kim Davis did not (could not). (That is, Kim Davis had no one else to send them to.)

3. Tonya Parker was not reprimanded, cited, or treated badly in any way; Kim Davis went to jail.

There, see? Mostly false. As long as you keep in mind the question. It is nearly identical to the story of the judge in Oregon who is facing discipline for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies because of his religious beliefs even though he was not obligated under law to do so and he ensured that his clerks referred any requesting such a ceremony to other available judges.

And are the two, the judge in Texas and the judge in Oregon, the same stories? Similar, but not the same. The judge in Oregon was practicing his constitutionally guaranteed 1st Amendment right; the judge in Texas was not. The judge in Oregon faces consequences; the judge in Texas did not. (Please note that I indicated that the judge in Texas story paralleled the judge in Oregon, not Kim Davis.) So, dear reader, you decide. Have I indicated something false, or am I being falsely accused?