Lux Lucet

“Marriage equality is the law of the land,” sniffed democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a recent tweet. She was referring to Kim Davis, the Rowan County Kentucky clerk recently jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Continued the democratic front runner, “Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law – end of story.” The phrase “law of the land” has always sat ill with me. I say this, not because I am opposed to the idea of law. Rather, it is the way it is used that bothers me. For in my experience, when someone utters the words “the law of the land,” it is generally some statist imperiously lecturing the opposition that such and such a statue has been declared by the courts, that they need to deal with it, and that they should get out of his face and take their sorry, procrustean, Bible-thumping selves and slither back to whatever hillbilly holler they crawled out of. In other words, just shut up!, shut up!, shut up! already.

Of course, coming from Hillary Clinton these words, particularly the part about “Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law,” serve not only as further evidence (as if any were needed) of her overbearing arrogance, but are more than a bit rich. After all, this is the woman who, contrary to law, while serving as Secretary of State, knowingly used a private server to conduct state business, lied about it, and then, when forced to turn said server over to the FBI, first had it professionally wiped clean. It would be hard to imagine a more dishonest, lawless public official than Hillary Clinton. She is the last person who has any place lecturing anyone on how to conduct official business.

Legislating Morality

The jailing of Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses gay couples (actually, she refused to issue any marriage licenses to any couples, homosexual or not) and the reaction of the mainstream media, homosexual rights activists, and government officials is packed with implications. But I would like to focus on just one of them: the legislation of morality.

It is a common to hear the saying, “you can’t legislate morality,” and it is just as common for people to accept it as true. “After all,” they will say, “morality is a private matter.” Others will argue that, in a pluralistic society where large numbers of people cannot agree on what is moral, imposing morality is simply impractical. But is this the case? Is it true that you can’t legislate morality? At first blush, it may seem so. But what is law if not morality legislated? Writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul stated,

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For these is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil (Romans 13:1-4).

Government officials are to praise what is good and punish what is evil. In other words, they are not only to legislate morality, but also impose it, by force if necessary. Now what actions are to be considered illegal – note well, the magistrate is to punish those who practice evil; Paul’s words should not be construed as supporting “thought police” – and what the punishments should be applied to guilty parties must be determined by appeal to other Scriptures. But Paul clearly argues that morality can be legislated. Further, there is only one source of morality: the 66 books of the Bible. And the morality set forth in those 66 books and summarized in the Ten Commandments is binding on all men – government officials included – in all places at all times.

Imposing Morality

Oddly enough, many who claim to be Christians, or at least assert their respect for Christian morality, are among those who have shied away from the notion of imposing Christian morality on society at large, and their secularist opponents have called them out on this. Writing in New Republic, Brian Beutler commented,

Back before the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, when it became clear that same-sex marriage would one day be the law of the land [there’s that phrase again] in most, if not all states, conservative culture warriors abruptly changed tacks. After organizing for years around the notion that states and the federal government should refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, they decided the time had come for everyone to be accommodating to one another – as if liberals were suddenly making unfair demands.

But liberals were doing no such thing. For generations, when disputes rooted in discrimination against gays and lesbians arose between parties, governments would generally side with the discriminators [in other words, Beutler is upset that governments in the West, in agreement with the Bible, historically fulfilled their God-appointed duty by imposing civil penalties on those who practiced sodomy]. Liberals were simply demanding that moving forward, the presumption should be turned on its head – beginning with the states themselves, a great many of which refused to recognize same-sex marriages [actually, those promoting gay marriage concealed the obvious iron fist of their agenda under the velvet glove of “marriage equality,” crowing “Love Won,” after the Supreme Court ruled in their favor; now that the dust has settled, off comes the glove, it’s time for paybacks].

Conservatives responded by issuing pleas for mercy, and embraced the concept of pluralism, to wield as a cudgel against gay rights activists. Same-sex marriage might prevail legally and politically, but opponents should not thenceforth be treated like bigots or pariahs or scofflaws.

What was rendered as a call for pluralism, though, was really a counterbid to keep the old formula: when disputes arise between same-sex couples and religious people like ourselves, the state should side with us (Throw Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis in Jail).

Beutler, even if he is wrong about the way gay marriage was sold to the general public, is clear eyed enough to understand that Christian morality is incompatible with the gay agenda. What is more, he does us a favor by pointing out just how lame conservatives sound when appealing for tolerance after their latest defeat in the culture war. His comments vividly underscore the point John Robbins made years ago in his article Conservatism: An Autopsy. In his essay, Robbins argued that Conservatism and Christianity are two different things, that Conservatism is actually anti-Christian, and that “Christians ought to dissociate themselves from conservatives by articulating a distinctively Biblical position in politics.” This means Christians must reject cowardly pleading to the enemies of Christ for tolerance and boldly proclaim the whole counsel of God. As Robbins pointed out in another essay,

There is only one moral authority, the Bible, and it is our job as Christians to impose its morality on the society in which we live….

Christians have been scared to death by the pagans who argue that one must never impose one’s religious beliefs on others. Tell that to the 16 million American babies who have had the religious beliefs of seven old men on the Supreme Court imposed on them. In any civilized society, religious beliefs will be imposed; morality will be legislated. Civil law is nothing more than legislated morality…

We must reject the notion, and I quote from David Little, professor of Religion (what else?) and Sociology at the University of Virginia: “In a pluralistic society, it is simply not appropriate in the public forum to give as a reason for a law or policy the fact that it is derived from the ‘Word of God’ or is dictated by the Bible.” On the contrary, the only good reason for a law or policy is that it is deduced by good and necessary consequences from the Bible (Abortion, the Christian, and the State).

Conclusion

Kim Davis finds herself in jail and at the center of a media storm for the simple reason that, acting in the role of a civil magistrate, she imposed Christian morality on those who hate it. It should come as no surprise that her stance has drawn the ire of America’s pagans, for pagans like Brian Beutler have always detested having their sinful agendas exposed by the Word of God. As Robbins pointed out,

As Christians we are commanded to do everything in the name of Christ and to the glory of God [this includes serving as a county clerk], and to bring every thought into captivity to Christ. The pagans want us to talk like Christians inside the church walls, and like pagans in the halls of government. If a Christian does that, he has betrayed Christ. The Bible claims to have a monopoly on truth, and it is about time that Christians began to talk and act as though they believed the Bible (Abortion, the Christian, and the State).

Taking the name of Christ is risky business. Davis is not the first Christian to fall victim to the ungodly homosexual lobby (see here, here, here and here), and almost certainly will not be the last. The world will continue to tell Christ’s followers to shut up and get with the program, threatening terrible things if they do not. This comes with the territory. As Jesus himself said, “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.” (John 15:20). Kim Davis applied her Christianity to her job and has been rewarded by the state with jail time. When push comes to shove, may all Christ’s people be found so faithful.