Leftist Media Digs the Dirt on Kim Davis, Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Issue Homosexual Marriage Licenses (VIDEO)

Here's Dana Loesch, on the Kelly File last night.

This lady is an elected official, it turns out. And that changes my thinking a little on the case. Sure, I'd expect her to issue marriage licenses as part of her duties, but it's up to the voters to remove her from office, or for the state legislature to impeach, which is unlikely. And as Dana points out, the woman's a Democrat. You're definitely not getting that tidbit of info from the collectivist press, conveniently.



Plus, at the New York Times, "What’s Next for Kentucky Clerk Who Refuses to Issue Licenses for Gay Marriage."

PREVIOUSLY: "Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis is Sudden Symbol of Recalcitrant Resistance to Depraved Leftist Homosexual Agenda."

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis is Sudden Symbol of Recalcitrant Resistance to Depraved Leftist Homosexual Agenda

I'm actually not backing this lady, since she's a government employee. The Supremes ruled in favor of a right to homosexual marriage. I don't like it, but that's the law. She should take her opposition campaign to the private realm. Folks expect to get the marriage licenses in the state, and rightly so.

At the Lexington Herald-Leader, "Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, once a local fixture, is suddenly a national symbol."

And at the Louisville Courier-Journal, "Kim Davis cites God, crowd jeers gay couple," and "Rowan clerk Kim Davis loses Supreme Court fight."

Radical Feminism and the 'Equality' Trap

From Robert Stacy McCain, at the Other McCain, "Radical lesbian activist @EllenPage decided that @TedCruz needed a lecture from her about equality and discrimination..."

And ICYMI, "Actress Ellen Page Bushwhacks Ted Cruz at Iowa State Fair (VIDEO)."

Actress Ellen Page Bushwhacks Ted Cruz at Iowa State Fair (VIDEO)

At Twitchy, "Watch actress Ellen Page get schooled while debating Ted Cruz on gay rights in Iowa [video]."

And raw video at CNN, "Actress Ellen Page debates Ted Cruz on LGBT rights." Also, with Fredericka Whitfield, "Actress Ellen Page confronts Ted Cruz over LGBT issues."

More at Power Line, "TED CRUZ DEBATES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WITH LEFT-WING ACTRESS."

Boy Scouts of America to Lift Ban on Homosexual Adults

Hey, gotta go with the flow, I guess.

At ABC 10 News, San Diego, "Boy Scouts board ends ban on gay scout leaders."

Also at CNN, "Jon Langbert, a former Boy Scout leader who is gay, says that the lifted ban on gay adult leaders does not go far enough."

Doesn't go far enough? You'll notice that the goal isn't so much to allow gays to participate in the Boy Scouts, but to once again banish altogether the role of religion out of American life, public and private.

This whole turn is horrendous. See, "The Same-Sex Marriage Bait-and-Switch."

Poll Shows Support for Homosexual Marriage Tanking After Supreme Court's Obergefell Ruling

This is counterintuitive.

You'd think a threshold's been crossed, and public acceptance of homosexual nuptials would increase.

But no. What's happening is the over-the-top football-spiking of the left's depraved homos is simply turning people off. Indeed, I've been predicting that support for homosexual marriage would decline as the homosexual ayatollahs, emboldened by judicial fiat, started to violently impose their hateful agenda on the rest of America. Combine that with the numerous examples of threats to religious liberty, and it's clear that same-sex licentiousness will continue to be a hot-button issue in politics and elections going forward.

At USA Today, "Poll shows slight dip in gay marriage support since Supreme Court ruling":

NEW YORK (AP) — The Supreme Court's ruling last month legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide has left Americans sharply divided, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that suggests support for gay unions may be down slightly from earlier this year.

The poll also found a near-even split over whether local officials with religious objections should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 47 percent saying that should be the case and 49 percent say they should be exempt.

Overall, if there's a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it's more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.

The poll was conducted July 9 to July 13, less than three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled states cannot ban same-sex marriage.

According to the poll, 42 percent support same-sex marriage and 40 percent oppose it. The percentage saying they favor legal same-sex marriage in their state was down slightly from the 48 percent who said so in an April poll. In January, 44 percent were in favor.

Asked specifically about the Supreme Court ruling, 39 percent said they approve and 41 percent said they disapprove.

"What the Supreme Court did is jeopardize our religious freedoms," said Michael Boehm, 61, an industrial controls engineer from the Detroit area who describes himself as a conservative-leaning independent.

"You're going to see a conflict between civil law and people who want to live their lives according to their faiths," Boehm said...

Only 42 percent support homosexual marriage? That's not a "slight decline." That's an almost 20 percent drop off from the widely touted Gallup poll that had support for homo unions at 60 percent.

Hmm, you think the Supreme Court stepped in and derailed a political contest raging across the country at the state level? No wonder conservative support for the Court is collapsing.

Hat Tip: The Daily Signal, "Poll: 59% Believe Businesses Should Be Able to Decline Gay Weddings."

Obama White House Celebrates Iran Nuclear Deal with Rainbow Lighting

Sounds about right, via Theo Spark.

The Left's Next Assault on Freedom and Decency: Religious Liberties

Bake the damned cake!

At the Los Angeles Times, "Battles over religious freedom are sure to follow same-sex marriage ruling":

For some, the Supreme Court's decision declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry put the free exercise of religion in danger.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was among them.

"Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples," Roberts wrote in a dissent joined by three other justices.

He also perceived a threat to tax exemptions for religious schools and colleges that oppose same-sex marriage. "Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today," Roberts said.

On the other hand, the same high court has expanded religious liberties. Just a year ago, the court's majority ruled for the Christian owners of the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores, holding they had a religious-freedom right to refuse to pay for certain contraceptives mandated by the Obama administration under the federal Affordable Care Act.

Only Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was in the majority both times — in favor of a right to marriage for gay and lesbian couples and in favor of a legal exemption based on a sincere religious belief.

The close divide among the justices almost ensures that new legal battles lie ahead. But when it comes to same-sex marriage, the June 26 ruling largely resolved the chief legal disputes.

Though some conservatives have complained that the decision forces religious people to perform same-sex weddings they believe violate their faith, ministers and pastors still have a right to refuse to participate in such ceremonies, as even supporters of gay rights are quick to acknowledge...

Of course they acknowledge it! Leftists won't be done until they destroy common decency and eradicate God from the whole of American life!

More, "LGBT activists say the fight doesn't end at marriage."

Of course it's not the end! It's just the beginning of the left's depravity!

Lesbian Margie Winters Fired from Waldron Mercy Academy for Homosexual Marriage

At the video, "presumably there are parents who are in favor of the school's decision." Yes, presumably. Would have been nice had this idiot reporter tracked a few of them down, rather than rely on this far-left radical Nancy Houston to speak for "the community." (Houston's also interviewed at MyFox 29 Philadelphia.)

What a joke. You can't even be Catholic in this country any more. Sad.

At the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Lesbian educator dismissed by Catholic school":

A RELIGIOUS-EDUCATION director at a Montgomery County Catholic school has been dismissed because, parents say, she is lesbian wedded to a woman.

Many parents have voiced support for the educator, Margie Winters, director of religious education and outreach, calling her "inspirational" and "dedicated." Now they're directing their ire not at the school and its sponsor, the Sisters of Mercy, but at the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Archbishop Charles Chaput.

"It's time to get the attention of the Archdiocese and the Catholic hierarchy and let them know this is illegal," said Katie Culver, who has three children at the school.

Parents and alumni will meet tonight to discuss the matter and "to unify in support of Margie," Culver said.

Waldron Mercy's principal, Nell Stetser, addressed Winters' dismissal in a letter Friday to parents.

"[O]ur school recognizes the authority of the Archbishop of Philadelphia, especially in the teaching of religion, because we call ourselves Catholic," she wrote.

Despite her "amazing contributions" to the school in Merion Station, the school opted not to renew Winters' contract, Stetser wrote.

"Margie certainly has enriched the lives of everyone in the WMA family . . . however, my duty is to protect our school's future," Stetser wrote.

"In the Mercy spirit, many of us accept life choices that contradict current Church teachings, but to continue as a Catholic school Waldron Mercy must comply with those teachings," she wrote.

Some parents are not buying it.

"It's not for any other reason but the fact that she is a homosexual," said Anthony Archievala, whose two daughters attend Waldron Mercy. "We were shocked because she'd been there for so many years."

A parent wrote to school officials and the Archdiocese suggesting that Winters use the "Theology of the Body," a series of addresses by Pope John Paul II, in the school curriculum, and Winters said no, Culver said.

Efforts yesterday to reach the parent were unsuccessful.

Archdiocese spokesman Ken Gavin released a statement denying that the church was involved in Winters' ouster.

"Waldron is a private Catholic school and it is not in any way under the administrative purview of the Archdiocese," he said. "As such, personnel decisions at that school are made locally without oversight from the Archdiocese."

Winters began to work for the school in August 2007, according to her LinkedIn page. She did not respond to requests for comment.

Winters' old job is already listed under employment opportunities on Waldron Mercy's website...

Also at Truth Revolt, "Philly Catholic School Facing Severe Legal Punishment After Firing Lesbian Teacher."

PREVIOUSLY: "The Coming Era of Civil Disobedience."

The Coming Era of Civil Disobedience

From Patrick Buchanan, at WND:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has ordered a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the state Capitol.

Calling the Commandments “religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths,” the court said the monument must go.

Gov. Mary Fallin has refused. And Oklahoma lawmakers instead have filed legislation to let voters cut out of their constitution the specific article the justices invoked. Some legislators want the justices impeached.

Fallin’s action seems a harbinger of what is to come in America – an era of civil disobedience like the 1960s, where court orders are defied and laws ignored in the name of conscience and a higher law.

Only this time, the rebellion is likely to arise from the right.

Certainly, Americans are no strangers to lawbreaking. What else was our revolution but a rebellion to overthrow the centuries-old rule and law of king and parliament, and establish our own?

U.S. Supreme Court decisions have been defied and those who defied them lionized by modernity. Thomas Jefferson freed all imprisoned under the sedition act, including those convicted in court trials presided over by Supreme Court justices. Jefferson then declared the law dead.

Some Americans want to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, who, defying the Dred Scott decision and fugitive slave acts, led slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad.

New England abolitionists backed the anti-slavery fanatic John Brown, who conducted the raid on Harpers Ferry that got him hanged but helped to precipitate a Civil War. That war was fought over whether 11 Southern states had the same right to break free of Mr. Lincoln’s Union as the 13 colonies did to break free of George III’s England.

Millions of Americans, with untroubled consciences, defied the Volstead Act, imbibed alcohol and brought an end to Prohibition.

In the civil rights era, defying laws mandating segregation and ignoring court orders banning demonstrations became badges of honor....

Rosa Parks is celebrated. But the pizza lady who said her Christian beliefs would not permit her to cater a same-sex wedding was declared a bigot. And the LGBT crowd, crowing over its Supreme Court triumph, is writing legislation to make it a violation of federal civil rights law for that lady to refuse to cater that wedding.

But are people who celebrate the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village as the Mount Sinai moment of their movement really standing on solid ground to demand that we all respect the Obergefell decision as holy writ?

And if cities, states or Congress enact laws that make it a crime not to rent to homosexuals, or to refuse services at celebrations of their unions, would not dissenting Christians stand on the same moral ground as Dr. King if they disobeyed those laws?

Already, some businesses have refused to comply with the Obamacare mandate to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees. Priests and pastors are going to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Churches and chapels will refuse to host them. Christian colleges and universities will deny married-couple facilities to homosexuals.

Laws will be passed to outlaw such practices as discrimination, and those laws, which the Christians believe violate eternal law and natural law, will, as Dr. King instructed, be disobeyed.

And the removal of tax exemptions will then be on the table.

If a family disagreed as broadly as we Americans do on issues so fundamental as right and wrong, good and evil, the family would fall apart, the couple would divorce, and the children would go their separate ways.

Something like that is happening in the country.

A secession of the heart has already taken place in America, and a secession, not of states, but of people from one another, caused by divisions on social, moral, cultural and political views and values, is taking place.

America is disuniting, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote 25 years ago.

And for those who, when young, rejected the views, values and laws of Eisenhower’s America, what makes them think that dissenting Americans in this post-Christian and anti-Christian era will accept their laws, beliefs, values?

Why should they?

Actually, Buchanan's getting over into crackpot radical libertarian territory with that stuff on the South and states' rights in the Civil war, but still. He's got a point about civil disobedience. Leftists have the loaded gun to your head on their radical homosexual demands. If you don't kowtow you'll be ruined, if not dead.

Defining Deviancy Down

Yeah, well, it's onto polygamy and incestuous unions now. No seriously.

Two men sodomizing each other is not a marriage. #EqualityIsRetarded

— Ian (@Ian2813) July 3, 2015

@Ian2813 @SandraHartle #StopSDN pic.twitter.com/G8QdykAGul

— Erasmus ن Longfellow (@SandyEgoCali) July 5, 2015

Welcome to the Disunited States of America

Politico is going all out with the attacks on the South this 4th of July weekend, and it's not good.

As I said the other day, I agree with public opinion that the Confederate flag stands mostly for heritage, although there's a ugly element to it that can't be ignored and that alienates black Americans. For that reason it should not fly over public facilities. But the attacks have gone too far. Leftists have taken demonization of the South to its logical conclusion: the total eradication of Southern culture and history from the public realm.

These Disunited States http://t.co/oPF03oIfVX | iStock pic.twitter.com/cApw2N1a8v

— POLITICO (@politico) July 4, 2015

How the South Skews #America - #MichaelLind - POLITICO Magazine http://t.co/FaLV4Zi43Y #eyebalz #buzz #2minRead

— Eyebalz (@Eyeballsio) July 4, 2015

Bloomberg's John Heilemann: Hillary Clinton Should Be Quaking at Massive Rallies Turning Out for Bernie Sanders

Heilemann's the co-author of Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime.

And he's a leftist.

Majority of Americans See Confederate Flag as Symbol of Southern Pride

At CNN, "Poll: Majority sees Confederate flag as Southern pride symbol, not racist":

Washington (CNN) - American public opinion on the Confederate flag remains about where it was 15 years ago, with most describing the flag as a symbol of Southern pride more than one of racism, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. And questions about how far to go to remove references to the Confederacy from public life prompt broad racial divides.

The poll shows that 57% of Americans see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism, about the same as in 2000 when 59% said they viewed it as a symbol of pride. Opinions of the flag are sharply divided by race, and among whites, views are split by education.

Among African-Americans, 72% see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, just 25% of whites agree. In the South, the racial divide is even broader. While 75% of Southern whites describe the flag as a symbol of pride and 18% call it a symbol of racism, those figures are almost exactly reversed among Southern African-Americans, with just 11% seeing it as a sign of pride and 75% viewing it as a symbol of racism.

Among whites, there's a sharp divide by education, and those with more formal education are less apt to see the flag as a symbol of pride. Among whites with a college degree, 51% say it's a symbol of pride, 41% one of racism. Among those whites who do not have a college degree, 73% say it's a sign of Southern pride, 18% racism.

Efforts to remove the flag or other references to the Confederacy from public places have emerged in the weeks since nine African-American churchgoers were killed by a white man who said he was trying to start a race war in a Charleston church. But the poll shows the public is mixed on how far those efforts should go, and nearly all flag-related questions reveal broad racial divides.

A majority favors removing the Confederate flag from government property that isn't part of a museum: 55% support that while 43% are opposed. And half support private companies choosing not to sell or manufacture items featuring the Confederate flag: 50% are in favor, 47% opposed.

But most oppose other efforts, including redesigning state flags that feature Confederate emblems or symbols to remove references to the Confederacy (57% oppose that), renaming streets and highways named after Confederate leaders (68% oppose that) and removing tributes to those who fought for the Confederacy from public places (71% oppose that)...

The public's quite reasonable on this. Certainly, the flag represents Southern heritage, and it's not inherently racist. But, since it is the flag of the Confederacy, which at base fought the Civil War to protect states' rights to own property in slaves, it's going to be divisive to large numbers of Americans, hurtful especially to blacks, and hence a strong majority of 55 percent say the flag should not fly over government facilities.

I think that's a fair understanding of the issues and that's my position as well. Note that the public sees the efforts to send the Confederate flag down the leftist memory hole as mistaken.

More at Memeorandum.

No Truce With the Left

From Daniel Greenfield, at Sultan Knish:

By 2024, the Republican gay and tranny candidates will be dismissed as tokens while the media oohs and aahs over a vocal and charismatic campaigner for some other love that dare not speak its name.

And that's the point. It has always been the point.

The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left's favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.

The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.

That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues...

Hmm.

He's a little too honest about the left, heh!

Keep reading.

BuzzFeed's Struggles on Homosexual Marriage

From Mollie Hemingway, at the Federalist, "BuzzFeed’s Journalistic Struggles on Same-Sex Marriage, In GIFs."

@MZHemingway I don't know most people's faith/personal views on much. Definitely ppl who disagree on the constitutional q.

— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) June 30, 2015

Is the Breakup of the United States In Our Future?

From AWD:

President @BarackObama has brought dignity back to America pic.twitter.com/kn55zZSDZK

— Steve Goddard (@SteveSGoddard) June 29, 2015

Obama Could Sink the Democrats in 2016

He could.

He's our first homosexual president.

At the Hill:

Brent Budowsky for The Hill: Obama could sink 2016 Dems http://t.co/3rYGQGJQYB pic.twitter.com/KDMRBOoS45

— The Hill (@thehill) July 1, 2015

The Next Culture War

From David Brooks, at the New York Times.

Read at the link for Brooks' discussion on the new round of the culture wars that's been unleashed with the Obergefell decision. Brooks suggests that it may be time to move past the current battles, which conservatives have lost:

Consider a different culture war, one just as central to your faith and far more powerful in its persuasive witness.

We live in a society plagued by formlessness and radical flux, in which bonds, social structures and commitments are strained and frayed. Millions of kids live in stressed and fluid living arrangements. Many communities have suffered a loss of social capital. Many young people grow up in a sexual and social environment rendered barbaric because there are no common norms. Many adults hunger for meaning and goodness, but lack a spiritual vocabulary to think things through.

Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely.

The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life.

This culture war is more Albert Schweitzer and Dorothy Day than Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham; more Salvation Army than Moral Majority. It’s doing purposefully in public what social conservatives already do in private.

I don’t expect social conservatives to change their positions on sex, and of course fights about the definition of marriage are meant as efforts to reweave society. But the sexual revolution will not be undone anytime soon. The more practical struggle is to repair a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable. Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace.

More at Memeorandum, especially Rod Dreher, at AmCon, "David Brooks on ‘The Next Culture War’," and Vox Day, at Vox Populi, "They are the SAME war."

I thinks folks on the right should just step back, take a breather on the culture wars and start prioritizing a national security agenda for election 2016. Economics and national security should be the big issues, with immigration a key plank on the homeland side of security. Give homosexual marriage a rest --- at least for now.

Reports of the Supreme Court's Leftward Turn Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Good.

At Politico, "Supreme Court's liberal admirers get reality check":

Liberals still giddy over a series of major victories at the Supreme Court last week got a bracing reality check Monday, as conservatives carried the day on key cases involving the death penalty and President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda.

Progressives got another signal that any momentum they were experiencing at the high court could be short-lived: the justices announced they will address the thorny issue of affirmative action next term, taking up for the second time a case challenging the University of Texas’s use of race in its admissions process.

For some, it felt like whiplash.

“The cases today are shocking,” said Nan Aron, a prominent liberal activist and president of Alliance for Justice. “Last week was wonderful and no one can take away the victories that occurred, but I think it’s also important to understand those victories in a context [that] the court is one that continues to rule in favor of powerful and wealthy interests at the expense of most Americans. The decisions certainly today suggest that trend continues.”

Aron dismissed conclusions that the court was shifting to the left as it ruled in favor of same-sex marriage rights and upheld the nationwide availability of insurance subsidies under Obamacare, calling such pronouncements “largely premature and exaggerated.”
Some conservatives agreed that the court wasn’t necessarily taking a new direction.

“I always thought the claims that the Roberts court ‘is the most conservative since’ whenever were overblown and I think the claims of a dramatic leftward turn are overblown, too,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve. “When you kind of step back and look at the substance of the cases, what’s at issue and what the court did, I don’t think you see a great liberal shift.”

All three decisions the justices issued Monday were 5-4 rulings. Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the court’s other Republican appointees to reject a challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, effectively easing application of the death penalty nationwide, and to knock back regulations the Obama administration issued trying to limit mercury in power plants, complicating Obama’s environmental policies.

Even the sole case where the court’s liberal wing prevailed Monday by winning over Kennedy had a potential downside for the left. The court’s ruling allowing the redistricting of congressional seats to be handled by independent commissions is likely a setback to Republicans in Arizona, which brought the case to the justices, but a blow to Democrats in the much-larger state of California....

Keep reading.