KY (Roman Catholic Federal District Court David Bunning) Judge at center of gay marriage debate


#1

:frowning:

That’s what federal District Judge David Bunning’s mom said of her son. The judge from Fort Thomas on Thursday sent Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to jail after finding her in contempt of court for her refusal to issue a same-sex marriage license . . .

David Bunning was raised Roman Catholic, graduated in 1984 from Newport Central Catholic High School, and his mother said his faith is still important to him . . .

David Bunning is the youngest of nine children of Hall-of-Fame pitcher and former U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning and his wife, Mary Bunning. He grew up in Fort Thomas and was nominated by President George W. Bush for federal judge for the eastern district of Kentucky in 2001. The Senate confirmed the nomination in 2002.

cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/02/local-judge-center-gay-marriage-debate-leaves-political-views-home/71609688/

Folks, like this Federal District Court Judge is not intelligent enough to carve out a Constitutional exception to the Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUS decision under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and allow Freedom of Conscience for religious U.S. citizens and have someone else or a simple machine to rubber stamp the piece of paper from the County.

Instead Judge Bunning sent a Christian (Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis) to jail for 5 days for exercising her liberty of conscience as a Christian.

In my opinion, if I was his parents, with that privileged background and Catholic High School education and the Juris Doctorate they provided their son, I would be ashamed of him.

In my opinion, his mother’s rationalization of her son’s judicial decision to send the Christian County Clerk to jail is pathetic.

The amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:

First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

The article states Judge Bunning sells hot dogs and hamburgers (i.e., unhealthy junk food) for the Lions Club at Highlands High School football games.

I sort of knew Lions Club International is a club for businessmen and professionals; does anyone know more about them?

I looked the Wikipedia entry and they are classified as a “secular service club” which prohibits the discussion of politics and religion at their meetings.


#2

Judge Bunning accepted the New World Order agenda when it comes to same-sex marriage. He enforced federal tyranny.


#3

I agree. If one who wishes to dissent cannot get protection from someone like Judge Bunning, then there will be no protection from anyone in the future when they start persecuting clergy and religious organizations for not performing and recognizing same-sex marriages.


#4

The problem with the Kim Davis situation is that she was not acting on her own behalf, but as an agent of the state. She (and many others in her same situation) was stuck when the federal government passed along the Oberfield decision. As an agent of the state, she was bound to the letter of the law as presented in Oberfield. Yet, as a Christian who believes that same-sex “marriage” is contrary to God’s law, she was obliged to follow her conscience. I wouldn’t read too much into Judge Bunning’s ordering of Kim Davis into jail, either. Officials of the state (especially those in low-level offices and low-level judgeships) are in very precarious positions when people in a higher level of government have made decisions for them with which they personally disagree.

In general, they have three choices:
(1) follow the law as an agent of the state, even if he/she disagrees with the law, deciding that his/her signature/decision is not giving personal approval, only stating that the state approves or that he/she has no power to overturn a higher court’s decision, even in part;

(2) resign, deciding that one’s duties to his/her own conscience and one’s duties with the job conflict so much that there can never be resolution; or

(3) risk imprisonment and/or loss of employment for refusing to perform the aspects of the job that conflict with his/her conscience.

From what I gather, most state officials and low-level judges have chosen path (1). This is considered “remote cooperation with evil”, since their hands are, unfortunately, tied with often no good other options. Judges can refuse to perform weddings (in fact, they can decide to refuse to perform all weddings). But county clerks are merely considered record keepers. A county clerk’s signature on a marriage certificate merely indicates that he/she gave authorization to record a state-recognized marriage in the wedding register. It does not mean that he/she approved of the marriage or that he/she believed that the marriage was valid - only that the state did.

In other words, state officials are employees of the state, not merely private citizens. When a person becomes an employee of any organization, while conducting business, he/she acts not as a private person but as a representative of the organization. This is true whether the organization is public or private. As a representative of the organization, in order to maintain employment, he/she is obliged to follow the rules and regulations of the organization, even if they change unexpectedly. If one does not believe that he/she can morally perform the duties of the organization, he/she can resign or be subject to disciplinary action from the organization.


#5

This all comes down to the tired old excuse…" Im not guilty of anything, I was just doing my job"…it didnt work at Nuremberg, and I doubt it will work when standing before God.

If you are a Christian, Gods laws MUST come first and be the priority, cannot serve two masters.


#6

:thumbsup:


#7

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.