Kim Davis Jailed – Is This Our Fate?

Kim Davis Jailed – Is This Our Fate?

In 2004, 75% of Kentucky voters passed a State Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. On Thursday, Sept. 3, County Clerk Kim Davis was sent to jail by U.S. District Judge David Bunning because she refuses to issue “gay marriage” licenses, a decision which she says is rooted in her strong Christian faith.

County Clerk Kim Davis turns down homosexual couple seeking marriage license. From NY Times video. Watch the video here.

The judge told her that she’ll stay in jail until she’s willing to change her mind — and go against her conscience and faith. He said that he’d review the situation in a week. The judge said that he jailed her because fining her  “would not bring about the desired result of compliance”.

There are approximately 125 county officials throughout Kentucky who can issue “gay marriage” licenses. But the judge was adamant that every county official must be forced to do it and that religious freedom cannot be allowed, despite the First Amendment. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” he said.

 The now-infamous mug shot of Kim Davis taken as she was brought into jail. Is this our fate?



Please sign this petition in support of Kim Davis…

Comments (158)

  • Muffin Man Returns

    Most of these liberal types who publically support homosexual marriage, privately think homosexuality is a joke and mock homosexuals behind their backs. I have witnessed this. Whereas, I as a Catholic would always treat a homosexual person charitably, yet I would be labelled a homophobe.

    September 5, 2015 at 2:12 am
    • editor

      Muffin Man,

      Sweet – or rather not so sweet – irony!

      September 5, 2015 at 8:32 am
    • Therese


      Absolutely correct. I too have witnessed this.

      September 5, 2015 at 11:54 am
  • Jersey_Boy

    I am a Roman Catholic. Kim Davies is a Government employee. Kim Davies MUST serve ALL people of her County. She can not pick and choose who she serves. She MUST serve them all, not just the ones she agrees with.

    September 5, 2015 at 4:10 am
    • editor

      Jersey Boy,

      If you are a Catholic then you ought to sue your Catholic school and parish priest, because you have obviously been taught that God’s will takes second place to the will of the people who voted evil into national legislation. In other words, you have been taught that good is evil and evil is good. Tantamount to blasphemy.

      Nobody on this earth has the authority to change God’s law – not even your President Obama or our Prime Minister/First Minister. Catholic Social Teaching means that Christ must be the head of every nation under Heaven and His laws obeyed.

      What would we think of someone in the employ of Hitler during World War II, who was cast into prison for refusing to participate in the holocaust where Jews, Catholics and others were murdered in the name of the State – remember, this was legal then.

      I’ll tell you what clear minded people would think of such a person – we’d be awarding him hero status and rightly so.

      September 5, 2015 at 8:36 am
      • Jersey_Boy

        Please try playing in the same ballpark. Comparing millions who died in the Holocaust with 2 people who believe they love each other is ludicrous. And speaking of Jesus Christ, now I’m not a bible scholar but I’ve never heard of Christ mentioning homosexuality.

        September 5, 2015 at 11:33 am
      • Therese

        Jersey Boy

        Next you’ll be telling us that you’ve never heard of Church teaching on homosexuality!

        September 5, 2015 at 11:57 am
      • Jersey_Boy

        Are you saying the Catholic Church is infallible? Are you saying everything the Church has ever done was correct and just?

        You know, I remember like it was yesterday. I went to grammar/High School at St.Mary Rutherford. Unlike today, back then over 90% of the teachers were nuns and priests. I went to Sunday school every week. Now, I don’t remember their exact words, only the impressions of a young child. Priests were infallible, the Holy Spirit sat on their shoulder guiding and inspiring them. That may not be the exact words they used, it has been well over 50 years but I have no doubt that was the impression it left.

        Some of these same men (guided by the Holy Spirit?) took little boys and girls in the back room, dropped their frocks, had their jollies and without skipping a beat said Holy Mass and passed out Holy Communion.

        Men are men, flawed, prejudiced, liars, cheaters, molesters. Now again, I could easily be wrong but did Jesus condemn homosexuality or was it simply another man? My understanding is Jesus was about love and inclusion not exclusion.

        The world has witnessed many times the failures of many Priests, simply men who were supposedly GOD’s right hand men.

        September 5, 2015 at 12:40 pm
      • Therese

        On faith and morals, Church teaching is infallible. What was the Truth yesterday, was the Truth 2000 years ago, and will be the Truth until the end of time.

        Have you forgotten Christ’s teaching on marriage? Did you ever read what St Paul wrote of the practice of sodomy?

        No-one in their right mind could believe that every priest and nun was infallible! For goodness sake! And if your understanding of Our Blessed Lord is that He is about “love and inclusion” you clearly don’t remember Him saying “I come not to bring peace, but a sword…”

        It’s very peaceful to go along with the world, and what the world says is OK, isn’t it? Don’t make waves, show your “love” of others by letting them do whatever they want. That’s not love, Jersey Boy, it’s indifference. As Catholics we are obliged to speak the Truth, and that is quite often inconvenient and unpleasant, and can cause hurt and anger. Nevertheless we have a duty to point out that what we do here has eternal consequences, not saying “whatever makes you happy is good”.

        You see, we really do love our brothers and sisters, and we want them to be happy for ever in Heaven.

        As to flawed priests, they, like the rest of us, they will be judged on their actions. I don’t believe in God because of priests, and if you have had so many unhappy experiences that is dreadful, but it doesn’t alter the Truth, does it?

        September 5, 2015 at 1:11 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        If you really wish to do as Jesus wanted then you should follow one of his main themes instead of focusing on a couple of people who love each other.

        Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

        Since you think the Church (filled with ordinary men) can do no wrong, has never been wrong and can’t ever be wrong what do you call all the higher ups that covered up the molestations, shipped the molesters to different parishes where the sins would repeat themselves. That was RIGHT? That isn’t wrong?

        I look forward to your yard sale.

        September 5, 2015 at 2:31 pm
      • Therese

        You don’t want to hear the truth, do you? I never said that priests/bishops et al can never do wrong, you just made that up. Perhaps it’s what you wanted me to say and “wanting is having” in your philosophy, eh?

        I’ve no idea what yard sales have to do with anything; just another example of your confused and prejudiced thinking, perhaps.

        September 5, 2015 at 4:31 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        Oh, one more thing, since the Church is perfect (when some of your parts are flawed, you are flawed) then you must be 100% in lock stop with Pope Francis

        September 5, 2015 at 2:35 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy

        You are quoting Sacred Scripture to push false tolerance of sinful behaviour. Here is the truth that Kim Davis went to prison to uphold:

        “…Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

        For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents…” (St. Paul, Romans 1:24-30).

        September 5, 2015 at 3:14 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        But what did Jesus say about homosexuality? One thing Jesus did say was some are “Born this way”

        “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)”

        “In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire. (For a complete discussion of the term “born eunuch” and the connection with homosexuality, see The Early Church Welcomed a Gay Man.) ”

        September 5, 2015 at 3:39 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy,

        Eunuchs were A-Sexual men, “A” meaning non-active.

        By the way, the Torah is the traditional Scriptural teaching of Judaisim, not the Talmud.

        Now, what do you have to say about that quote from St. Paul?

        September 5, 2015 at 4:05 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        >“A” meaning non-active.

        You’re right non-active with WOMEN, exactly why they were trusted with women.

        Priests were also supposed to be “non-active” but the world learned different

        September 5, 2015 at 4:43 pm
      • Muffin Man Returns

        Jersey Boy,

        I think you’re confused.

        Most people with a homosexual orientation are not ‘born that way’. It is not biologically innate.

        The country’s leading gay rights activist Peter Tatchell doesn’t even think he was born this way:

        The scientific consensus, even among secular experts, is that homosexual orientation has a biological, psychological and social etiology.

        I know homosexuals who believe that their condition is due in part to aspects of their upbringing, i.e. environment. For example, it is extremely common for them to have had defective relationships with the same sex parent and/or same sex peers, and this is so common it cannot possibly be a coincidence.

        The prevailing culture wants you to believe that are different species of man and woman, homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, people with a ‘pre-pubertal orientation’ etc.. The reality is, none of these exist, and to label someone as such is an attack on the dignity of the human person. The Church teaches, simply, that there are men and women. That’s it. The Church loves the ‘homosexual person’, not because they are homosexuals, but because they are people.

        September 6, 2015 at 1:59 am
      • catholicconvert1

        You are not a Catholic. You are nothing more than a Protestant claiming to be Catholic. The Church cannot err because she is the spotless, immaculate and blood-washed Bride of Christ, which, as St. Paul said in Ephesians 5:27, is a ‘glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish’. Likewise, Christ gave St. Peter the Keys to the Gates of Heaven, along with the power to bind and loose, and promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against it. He also commanded St. Peter to ‘feed my sheep’. That sounds pretty infallible to me. If you say that Church can err in doctrine and teaching then you are a blasphemer as you are saying that Christ was not true to His promise, and therefore a liar.

        As for you saying that the early Church welcomed homosexuals, I have NO PROBLEM with homosexuals seeking to join the Church of Christ. Absolutely no problem. They must, however, like all sinners, repent and confess to the Priest, Christ’s representative on earth. I am a convert, and I had to confess my sins before receiving the Precious Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, the Church states authoritatively that homosexual actions are an aberration, and that chastity and celibacy, in the loving bosom of the Church, are their only option. A Catholic homosexual who strives for this, but falls into sin (i.e. same sex actions, sodomy) must urgently repent and throw himself at the feet of Christ and seek forgiveness with contrition, sorrow and humility. We love all people.

        Christ did define marriage, and therefore on cannot be a Catholic and support same-sex marriage. Christ said in Matthew 19:4-7, ‘have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
        Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder’. By virtue of this, Christ condemned and forbade homosexual partnerships or ‘marriages’.

        Regarding sodomy and same-sex relationships, Saints of the Church said the following:

        St. Augustine: “Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust.”

        St. Peter Damian: “The miserable flesh burns with the heat of lust; the cold mind trembles with the rancour of suspicion; and in the heart of the miserable man chaos boils like Tartarus [Hell]…. In fact, after this most poisonous serpent once sinks its fangs into the unhappy soul, sense is snatched away, memory is borne off, the sharpness of the mind is obscured. It becomes unmindful of God and even forgetful of itself. This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence”.

        Pope St. Gregory the Great: “Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulphur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulphur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime. For sulphur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites, burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench, should perish by fire and sulphur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire.”

        Now then, show me a Bible quotation that supports Sodomy or homosexual relationships, and tell me of any Saints who supported the same errors.

        September 6, 2015 at 1:57 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        Jesus talked about many sins, mortal and venial. Liars, cheaters, adulterers, divorcees, murderers, convicted pedophiles etc. They can all get married and many times even
        murderers in prison. You think murder is better than a homosexuality? Really?

        Why is it homosexuality is the be-all end-all of sins?

        September 5, 2015 at 3:59 pm
      • Therese

        Once again, you miss the point completely. They can’t all get married again in the EYES OF THE CHURCH. Geddit?

        Homosexuality is a graver sin because it is not just illicit, but unnatural.

        September 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm
      • Therese

        You’re right non-active with WOMEN

        You see, there you go again, putting your own spin on Our Lord’s words! NO, non-Active full stop!

        September 5, 2015 at 6:34 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        Jersey Boy,

        I thought of your when I read the following from the life of a Doctor of the Church, St Catherine of Siena:

        “Saint Catherine of Siena, a religious mystic of the 14th century, relays words of Our Lord Jesus Christ about the vice against nature, which contaminated part of the clergy in her time. Referring to sacred ministers, He says: “They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of fallen human nature] … but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them…. It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.” (St. Catherine of Siena, El diálogo, in Obras de Santa Catarina de Siena (Madrid: BAC, 1991), p. 292)

        September 5, 2015 at 9:28 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        Sodomy and Murder are both sins which ‘Cry out to Heaven for Vengeance’.

        September 6, 2015 at 2:00 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy

        It is not the “be-all end-all of sins.” Homosexual activity is a mortal sin that will damn a soul to Hell for eternity as surely as adultery, theft, murder or any other unrepented mortal sin. It really is as simple as that.

        Homosexual behaviour is not exempted from condemnation with God. Quite the contrary, in fact. Read again that passage from St. Paul I quoted earlier in this debate and then read the Scriptural account of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah.

        If that evidence, together with the infallible moral teaching of the Church, doesn’t convince you then I’m afraid you are not, as you insist, a Catholic.

        So, do you recognise the mortal sinfulness of sexual activity, including homosexual, outside of the married state, which will only ever be between one man and one woman? It’s a simple question requiring a simple yes or no.

        September 6, 2015 at 6:47 pm
      • Therese

        Oh, one more thing, since the Church is perfect (when some of your parts are flawed…

        So by that logic, Christ is flawed because some members of His Church are flawed? Even one of his chosen disciples, as I recall….

        You really shouldn’t advertise yourself as a Catholic, as you haven’t the first idea of what it means.

        September 5, 2015 at 4:35 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        Of course not silly, Christ is the son of GOD, everyone else on earth are mere men, flawed

        September 5, 2015 at 4:50 pm
      • Therese

        Logic isn’t your strong point, is it?

        September 5, 2015 at 5:13 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy

        Yet even those mortal men are at times protected by the Holy Ghost against teaching error, for example, when the Pope and bishops declare and uphold the divinely revealed truth that marriage is between one man and one woman. They are at that time speaking infallibly by the mouth of God and not by their own lights. That raises them above ordinary mortal men by the grace of the sacred office they hold, personally worthy or not.

        September 5, 2015 at 6:00 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy,

        I remember the late bishop Fulton Sheen talking about people like you; people with a list of accusations against the Church. It was his opinion, proved right many times by experience, that such people had a troubled conscience which they projected onto the Church rather than themselves. What is it that troubles your soul so greatly? Sort that problem out and you will not need to rant falsely against Christ’s Church, which is a rant against Christ Himself.

        I should also point out to you here that the Catholic Church never had “Sunday school”, that was the Protestant church. Catholics had Catechism classes. The second point is that you have no evidence whatever to substantiate your blanket accusation of sexual abuse of minors by priests and religious. A very small minority, mostly after Vatican II, were guilty of this crime. The greater majority of priests and religious all over the world were/are innocent of this kind of debauchery. You have no right to calumniate these consecrated souls. I hope you know that this is a very grave sin against charity and justice.

        Now, you ask if the Church is infallible. Yes, it is infallible by the testimony of Christ Our Lord Himself “…The Gates of Hell will not prevail, etc”. The Church cannot err either in faith or morals. This is a dogma of the Catholic Faith, a divinely revealed truth, that one must believe if one is to remain Catholic. Rejection of this or any other infallible dogma, regardless of all petty arguments to the contrary, constitutes apostasy from the true religion revealed by God.

        You should also know that the Catholic Church is the Spotless Bride of Christ, a divine institution incapable of wrong doing. Churchmen may certainly fail in their duty, as exemplified by Judas Iscariot, but the Church, the divine institution, cannot err in her teaching or her judgments.

        Finally, if you want the judgment of Christ on homosexual activity then read Romans 1:26 where St. Paul declares in Christ’s name. But then, maybe you’re one of those people who also denies the infallibility of Sacred Scripture. If so, you’re just a nominal Catholic (in name only) and more to be pitied than scorned.

        September 5, 2015 at 3:07 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        How dare you assume to know who I am

        September 5, 2015 at 3:41 pm
      • morgana

        Your right we can’t assume to know who you are but we clearly get an insight by what you have written.You either accept the church teaching in its full entirety or you don’t .There is no in between.Gods word is very clear on homosexuality and as a catholic you will know Gods word is gospel.

        September 5, 2015 at 4:14 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy,

        Did I hit a raw nerve? Imagine then how all those innocent priests feel when you go around accusing them in public of being abusers of children. It’s not nice, is it?

        By the way, I didn’t assume to know who you are. I merely suggested on the basis of your false accusations and feigned outrage that you are not what you proclaim to be, i.e., a practicing Catholic in the Traditional sense of the word.

        September 5, 2015 at 4:18 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        Not at all, you don’t know me and I would never know you

        September 5, 2015 at 4:36 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        What Priests did I accuse? Name some names please. You deny what happened or just choose to bury your head in the sands and ignore it?

        Seems I’m not the only one, times are a changing

        September 5, 2015 at 4:49 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy,

        You know exactly what you did. You made a blanket claim of clerical sexual abuse in such a way as to propose that a great majority of priests and religious were abusing children.

        If you had been honest, you would have written of a tiny minority of priests and religious worldwide, something like 0.2% of the universal clergy in fact, who have been guilty of this crime, while insisting that the greater majority of priests and religious are innocent of any such debauchery.

        But that kind of objective presentation would not have suited your cause, so you slanted you words quite deliberately in the hope of winning support for homosexuality against a Church full of ‘hypocrites’.

        The good news for you is that there is always room for one more hypocrite, assuming sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment.

        September 5, 2015 at 5:03 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy

        The Huffington Post is not exactly pro-Catholic. Do you not recognise propaganda when you see it?

        September 5, 2015 at 5:05 pm
  • David Skinner

    Kim Davis is obligated to abide by Kentucky Law which forbids a clerk to register same sex marriage. That law is written in the Kentucky statutes and until that changes she has to abide them.

    Here is what the law states:

    402.005 Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. Effective: July 15, 1998 History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998….
    402.010 Degree of relationship that will bar marriage. (1) No marriage shall be contracted between persons who are nearer of kin to each other by consanguinity, whether of the whole or half-blood, than second cousins. (2) Marriages prohibited by subsection (1) of this section are incestuous and void. History: Amended 1946 Ky. Acts ch. 124, sec. 1. — Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2096.

    And this:

    Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of KRS Chapter 402 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by KRS Chapter 402 from marrying shall be fined $500 to $1,000 and removed from office by the judgment of the court in which convicted (KRS 402.990).

    So she ought really to receive the highest honor for upholding Kentucky Law.

    September 5, 2015 at 9:33 am
    • Jersey_Boy

      Those state passed laws mean nothing. This is nothing more than a replay of Interracial marriage. Sure, the opposing parties are different but the outcome will be the same. SCOTUS has ruled on gay marriage as they ruled on Interracial marriage.

      1664 – Maryland passes the first British colonial law banning marriage between whites and slaves – a law that, among other things, orders the enslavement of white women who have married black men:

      1691 – The Commonwealth of Virginia bans all interracial marriages, threatening to exile whites who marry people of color. In the 17th century, exile usually functioned as a death sentence:

      1725 – Pennsylvania, passes a law banning interracial marriage.

      1705 – Massachusetts prohibited both marriage and sexual relations between people of color

      and about 10 – 15 more state laws. Did they hold?

      September 5, 2015 at 11:16 am
      • Alex F

        These examples are not the same as same-sex marriage. The state has no authority over marriage because marriage pre-dates the existence of any state and as such, belongs to the natural order. The state’s only responsibility in marriage is to recognise it. A couple of opposite sex and different race can produce viable offspring, so therefore ethnicity is no impediment to marriage. When a state pretends legislate on marriage it is arrogating to itself a capacity it doesn’t have as is exemplified by the unjust and invalid legislation you cite.

        In the case of same-sex marriage, two persons of the same sex are incapable by definition of producing offspring and therefore are incapable of entering marriage with each other. By recognising these unions as marriage, again, the state is pretending to do something it can’t. But then, it is just an extension of what states have been doing for many years, by recognising adulterous relationships as marriage.

        It is a masterstroke for the proponents of gay marriage to equate their campaign with the very real injustice of racial inequality. By doing so, they appeal to people’s natural sense of justice, and as so many people are ignorant (Catholics included) of the natural law and the correct use of marriage, it is working.

        September 5, 2015 at 12:23 pm
      • Muffin Man Returns

        This is not comparable to racism.

        You do realise many of the people who campaigned in the American civil rights movement were Christians? A lot of them were white Christians.

        You might not know this, but Fred Phelps was one of them. (I am not endorsing Fred Phelps or his vicious sect, I am merely pointing out that the Left is quick to play the race card, which is not only inaccurate, but unjust.)

        September 5, 2015 at 6:27 pm
      • Muffin Man Returns

        It is, in general, a tactic of the opponents of Catholicism to besmirch the Church’s character by comparing its orthodox members to racists and the political far right.

        For example, I have heard John Paul II and Benedict XVI refereed to as ‘fascists’ by angry secularists.

        Before the outbreak of war, the Catholic Church did more than anyone to counter the genocidal racism of the Third Reich. If you can think of anyone else who came remotely as close, please tell me.

        September 5, 2015 at 6:36 pm
      • Alex F

        I’m old enough to remember when gay people were campaigning for tolerance, and it is wrong to persecute people because of a tendency to commit that specific sin. However, what we have today is a completely different thing. We are equating sodomitic relationships with marriage when they are anything but. I accept that gay people used to be treated quite badly in our society but that’s not to dispute the seriousness of the sin.

        Today, gay people equate their position with the way people from specific ethnic backgrounds have been treated. That’s where they have been able to be successful because no one wants to be called a racist or to be associated with anything like racism. So they appeal to our sense of fairness and our emotional response to a perceived injustice and it has worked and it even worked in Ireland where the population was duped into voting in favour of gay marriage.

        September 5, 2015 at 7:18 pm
      • Muffin Man Returns

        The legal oppression of interracial marriages in the US was always immoral.

        Opposition to same sex marriage is not immoral.

        To compare the the civil rights movement to the homosexual marriage movement, as the Left does, is an incredible insult to person who have been oppressed on account of race. It is incomparable.

        I feel this comparison will actually lead to more racism. It already has. People who are inclined to oppose gay marriage for the right reasons might be inclined to disparage racial civil rights for the wrong reasons. This is inevitable if racial civil rights are hijacked by the generic leftist ideology.

        September 5, 2015 at 6:44 pm
  • Therese

    Interacial marriage involves a man and a woman. If they vow before God to marry, they are married in the sight of God, whether that is legal or not in the eyes of the law.

    There can be no marriage between persons of the same sex, and no human law or human being can make it so in the sight of God.

    It’s that simple, and Kim Davis knows it. She is being discriminated against and imprisoned for following God’s law, for which she will receive her reward. God bless and defend her, and may He enlighten the minds and souls of those who persecute her, while they are still capable of receiving His mercy.

    September 5, 2015 at 12:04 pm
    • Constantine

      She is the biggest hypocrite since… well, since Keith O’Brien let’s say. They editor will vouch for that.

      September 5, 2015 at 2:28 pm
  • Eileenanne

    I wonder if it is possible to write to Kim Davies with our support and thanks and words of encouragement? Probably people will be trying to make her feel that SHE is the odd one out, but if thousands – or even millions of letters started arriving at the jail it would be a comfort to her to know that we are praying for her and a sign to those who would “re-define” marriage that they haven’t won the battle yet.
    If that is not possible, how about a million letters, real paper ones that have to be dealt with rather than not emails that can simply be deleted, to the Governor of Kentucky?

    September 5, 2015 at 12:32 pm
    • Constantine

      Thrice married and divorced. An adulteress on all three occasions.

      September 5, 2015 at 2:32 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        Exactly! I can hear her now “I don’t have the time to look at my sins, I’m too busy looking at yours”

        September 5, 2015 at 2:48 pm
      • Therese


        I read that her various “marriages” were before she became a Christian. Is that not so?

        September 5, 2015 at 4:21 pm
      • Constantine

        That’s no excuse… even in the editor’s book.

        September 5, 2015 at 9:55 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        When she became a Christian, she obviously accepted Christ as her Saviour, and asked for forgiveness, so she has been washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb. Her situation sounds rather like the woman at the well, who was married five times and was living in sin with a man that was not her husband. Christ knew every detail of her life, and because of this she recognised Him as the Messiah, when she said (in John 4: 19-20 and 29-30), ‘Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet’, and when she went to the people and said ‘Come, and see a man who has told me all things whatsoever I have done. Is not he the Christ?’. She became a Christian and was saved at that point. Was St. Augustine not a grave sinner? He ended up as a great Saint of the Church.

        Jersey Boy and Constantine, are you saying that because of her past sins she cannot repent and uphold God’s law at the present and in the future?

        September 6, 2015 at 2:14 pm
      • Constantine

        Apparently, she was a Catholic before she became a Christian whatever that means.

        September 6, 2015 at 4:07 pm
      • Therese

        You’ve proven to be pretty busy looking at others’ sins yourself JB.

        September 5, 2015 at 4:22 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        The “sin” of discrimination has been forever

        “Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ”

        Everyone included

        September 5, 2015 at 4:31 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy,

        Our Lord Himself discriminated against those who refuse good and do evil.

        “Not all those who say Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven. But those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven, they shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”

        “Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.

        “Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.”

        “If you love me you will keep my Commandments.”

        Go ye therefore teaching all nations all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Those who believe and are baptised shall be saved. Those who refuse belief shall be condemned.”

        I could go on and on with Gospel quotations from Our Lord that clearly demonstrate that while God is infinitely merciful to the repentent sinner, His wrath is turned against those who promote evil with arrogance and presumption.

        Remember also the Gospel story of the man at the wedding feast who was without a white garment (signifying grace). Intimating the end of such people who die unrepentent of their sins, Our Lord says the master of the house (heaven) ordered that this man’s hands and feet be bound and he be cast into the exterior darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Hell).

        Recall also the number of times Our Lord spoke of Hell and the souls who go there, for example: “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”

        You may also wish to re-read in the Gospels the harsh words Our Lord had for the Pharisees and others who thought themselves wise in their own conceipt.

        September 5, 2015 at 4:51 pm
      • Alex F

        Our Lord didn’t show much tolerance for people used Scripture to suit their own ends and catch Him out. Neither did He indicate approval of sin. He showed a lot of compassion for people who were in sin, and forgave anyone who asked for pardon. But at no point did He give the slightest indication that sin was not sin, or that it was alright to sin.

        The modern world, and the Church too, has tried to turn Our Lord into some kind of left-wing hippie. Why on earth did He have to die on the cross if not for sin?

        September 5, 2015 at 5:42 pm
      • Therese

        Everyone’s included in this too: “Go now, and SIN NO MORE”.

        September 5, 2015 at 5:16 pm
      • editor


        Once again, you say what I am saying only much more concisely. You’re beginning to annoy me – can you not be longwinded, just once? 😀

        September 5, 2015 at 10:48 pm
      • Therese

        Funny you should say that Ed (may I call you Ed. Oh, OK. Editor). I could go on for hours and hours. I often do actually, but usually when alone, It’s better for everyone……

        September 6, 2015 at 9:55 pm
      • editor


        What that verse from Galatians means is that God’s grace is available to all – to EVERYONE. It’s not about human “equality” as currently propagandised and (mis)understood. Not remotely. If anyone – male, female, blah blah, embraces God’s grace, then they will have no difficulty living their lives in conformity to the truths revealed by God for our salvation. Everyone IS included, although, not, I suspect, in the way that you mean, because not all are saved. Only those who take note of Galatians 3: 28 and seek God’s grace to help them overcome their sinful desires and inclinations, to live in conformity with the laws of God, admitting and repenting of sins, not trying to have them “legalised” in order to live with a (falsely) satisfied conscience. That’s it. In the proverbial nutshell.

        September 5, 2015 at 10:46 pm
  • Therese


    I agree. The Governnor is called Beshear, address 700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

    September 5, 2015 at 12:38 pm
    • Eileenanne

      Thanks for that. My letter will be in the post tomorrow.

      September 5, 2015 at 10:28 pm
      • Therese

        Mine too.

        September 6, 2015 at 9:57 pm
  • Alex F

    Are people in Kentucky normally accompanied by camera crews when they go to apply for a marriage licence? I can’t understand why this woman has been arrested. Surely at worse, she should just have been disciplined by employer for breach of employment contract. But then, the requirement that she issue licences for gay marriages is a recent development and would constitute a change to her employment contract. Had she known at the time when she entered that employment that she would have been called upon to issue licences for same-sex marriages she would probably not have taken that job.

    Like in all cases that we have seen in recent years involving the rights of one group of people, their rights (which are not rights at all) are accommodated at the expense of Christians.

    September 5, 2015 at 12:39 pm
    • Constantine

      She was apparently ‘elected’ rather than hired, therefore, she has to be ‘impeached’ rather than dismissed for unprofessional conduct.

      I also understand she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband, but adopted by her second. She is now married to her fourth husband and expecting again by her first husband. You couldn’t make this up.

      How anyone on this blog can support this ghastly woman is beyond me.

      September 5, 2015 at 2:53 pm
      • Helen

        How do you know all this?

        September 5, 2015 at 3:43 pm
      • Constantine

        Her counsel was forced to confirm all this when all her dirty linen was hung out in court. There is now even talk of a book deal and a television mini-series on her life once she is released from prison. I am afraid even the editor would be out of her depth with this women… her former husbands certainly were.

        September 5, 2015 at 6:20 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        Do you think that because someone is a great sinner in one way, that they must not condemn other sins? I’ve just posted a quote from St Catherine of Siena which shows that Jesus finds the sin of Sodom particularly bad – causes him “nausea”, as a sin against nature. To commit other sexual sins is serious, I’m not denying that, but adultery is a grave sin against purity and faithfulness to a husband or wife, not “unnatural” in the same way as sodomy is.

        September 5, 2015 at 9:32 pm
      • Constantine

        The other doctor of the church, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, may see things differently, ‘love knows how to make the best of everything’.

        As for the felon, Davis, three strikes and your out.

        September 5, 2015 at 9:53 pm
      • Athanasius


        The Scriptural woman caught in adultery was forgiven by Our Lord, yet the same Lord would not so much as lift His eyes to look at Herod, who, according to historical accounts, was an active homosexual.

        Still, mortal sin is mortal sin and all mortal sins (unrepented) lead souls straight to Hell. The moral laws established by God, also in nature, are there for a reason; they offer true freedom, peace and happiness. It is a wisdom lost in this age.

        It seems our society is determined to throw off Christ its King in favour of a return to the immoral pagan cultures of old. But as history shows again and again, it was when these cultures reached the height of debauchery that they began to collapse into utter chaos. Even so, not one of those debauched societies ever countenanced marriage as anything other than the union of one man and one woman. What does that say about the people of today?

        The one thing I will say in favour of Kim Davis, adulterer that she may be, is that her conscience is clearly not entirely dead to moral truth. There’s hope for her yet.

        September 5, 2015 at 3:59 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        Oh sure blame homosexuality for everything. I would say Jesus was more concerned with this

        “He trusted no one, not even his wives (of which he had ten) or his many sons. One spouse and three of his boys were all executed because he feared they were plotting against him.

        But his most brutal act of genocide – the so-called Murder of the Innocents, recorded in St Matthew’s Gospel – was to order the killing of every single male child under two in his kingdom in an effort to destroy the infant Jesus, lest he grow into another threat to Herod’s rule.”

        September 5, 2015 at 4:14 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy,

        You confuse the two Herod’s. I was speaking of Herod Antipas, the one before whom Our Lord was sent for judgement by Pontius Pilate.

        Still, you raise a good point about his debauched father ordering the slaying of the innocents in the womb. Remind you of anything?

        September 5, 2015 at 4:25 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy,

        “Oh sure blame homosexuality for everything.”

        As is clearly evident from the unjust imprisonment of Kim Davis, it’s not the homosexuals who are being persecuted. Open your eyes!

        September 5, 2015 at 4:32 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        Kim Davies is an arm of the government, her personal feelings end when she walks though her office door. And court after court has said so. She represents all in her county not just the ones she agrees with

        September 5, 2015 at 4:52 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy

        “Kim Davies is an arm of the government, her personal feelings end when she walks though her office door.”

        I think the Nazis once said something similar.

        By the way, you seem to have missed the point: this is not about personal “feelings,” it’s about fidelity to divine truth.

        September 5, 2015 at 5:52 pm
      • Jersey_Boy

        I’m not a mind reader nor homosexual persecutor

        >It seems our society is determined to throw off Christ its King in favour of a return to the immoral pagan cultures of old. But as history shows again and again, it was when these cultures reached the height of debauchery that they began to collapse into utter chaos.

        Many said the same about interracial marriage

        September 5, 2015 at 4:35 pm
      • Athanasius

        Jersey Boy

        You’re obviously a very confused individual. This debate has nothing whatever in common with the interracial controversy. The controversy then was about men and women of different races being allowed to marry. The outrage now surrounds a world first claim that men should be allowed to marry men and women, women. This is a different ball game altogether, so please stop muddying the waters.

        September 5, 2015 at 5:15 pm
      • Prognosticum


        As Cardinal Burke reportedly replied to a bishop who said in last Synod that the natural law no longer cut much ice outside the Church, this is because we have lost the very concept of nature.

        It only because the concept of nature has been overthrown that the gender madness has gotten legs.

        September 5, 2015 at 7:49 pm
      • Athanasius


        I agree entirely. The concept of nature is lost because God is rejected. Hence, everything that was once good is now called evil and everything that was once evil is now called good. It is the business of Lucifer to turn everything on its head. He is the master of chaos.

        September 5, 2015 at 11:05 pm
      • Alex F

        Jersey Boy,

        Interracial marriage has never been an issue in Catholicism. You are confusing the two issues which are unrelated. Some Protestant sects have in the past banned interracial marriage and cherry-picked bits and pieces from Scripture to justify their false position. But it has never been an impediment to Catholic marriage.

        September 5, 2015 at 6:12 pm
      • westminsterfly

        Jersey Boy
        Read this:-

        September 8, 2015 at 3:22 pm
      • Alex F

        Yes, this is the problem here. I keep saying this to my Catholic friends who are upset by same-sex marriage legislation, but they don’t listen!

        The real problem is with divorce and contraception. The second you remove the marital act from its proper context, sex becomes simply about satisfying carnal impulse. So why should people who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex not enter “marriage” with each other? Under the social norms of our society, with sex being removed from its primary function, it makes no difference so long as both parties are consenting.

        Unfortunately, the lady in question does not see the contradiction in her actions, but that comes from the Protestant heresy of Sola Scriptura. The only difference is that her adultery is a sin sin within nature while sodomy is a sin against nature. So sodomy does represent a progression in our society’s revolt against its Creator, but we were still in revolt before same-sex marriage became an issue.

        September 5, 2015 at 6:06 pm
      • Andrew Paterson

        When people do something that we think is correct, their personal attributes, failings and history are generally not relevant. When you buy a ticket at a railway station you do not interrogate the sales clerk on their faith, morals, criminal convictions or personal beliefs.or do you?

        September 6, 2015 at 3:39 pm
      • Therese


        Uhuh. But we don’t think homosexual “marriage” is correct.

        September 6, 2015 at 9:59 pm
  • Vickie

    What kind of country are we when judges say things like ” “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” ! All in a way I can thank him at least for making things crystal clear.

    September 5, 2015 at 1:45 pm
    • Constantine

      In America if you break the law, you pay the price. Three strikes and your out.

      September 5, 2015 at 8:08 pm
      • Therese

        Unless your Planned Parenthood.

        September 5, 2015 at 9:09 pm
      • Therese

        you’re. Hangs head in shame and goes to bed….

        September 5, 2015 at 9:10 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        LOL ! It’s very annoying to make a typo like that. Well done you for spotting it before you went to bed !

        September 5, 2015 at 9:24 pm
      • Eileenanne

        You’re in good company.

        September 5, 2015 at 10:32 pm
      • Therese

        Thanks Eileenanne. I feel all “hip with the kids”!!!!

        September 6, 2015 at 10:00 pm
  • morgana

    Whatever this woman has done in her private life is a matter between her and god.The subject here relates only to her refusal to licence homosexual marriage .The judge needs to have a right good look at himself trying to force this woman into it by jailing her.She may well be hypocritical but as Athanasius said mortal sin is mortal sin so jersey boy why are you trying to make a case for homosexuals because they love each other while on the other hand you comment on this woman’s sinful life .Both are committing mortal sin and doing what is contrary to church teaching.

    September 5, 2015 at 4:31 pm
    • editor


      Well said. After all, if it’s a case of anything goes as long as two people “love” each other, then we have to presume that Kim and her various “husbands” “loved” each other as well at the time – what a crazy world… and we’re stuck with it, despite what the environmentalists tell us!

      September 5, 2015 at 10:39 pm
  • Prognosticum

    The doo-doo is starting to hit the fan, folks. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

    When it was in its ascendency, liberal fascism used ‘tollerance’ as one of its main weapons. Now that it is victorious, its tollerance has given way to the jackboot.

    The fact that recent legislation over a number of areas which are highly contentious ethically and bioethically does not provide for any form of conscientious objection means that the professions most connected to these areas will be increasingly off-limits not just to Catholics, but to Evangelicals, Jews and Muslims (all of whom, lest it be forgotten, are called to pay their taxes like everyone else). We will end up with a cultural apartheid where people of conscience will be treated like third-class citizens.

    You see, Pope John XXIII is a canonized saint. But personal holiness is one thing; prophechy, in the true sense of the word, is another. Just as one can be an MA and a fool, the fact that Pope John is a saint does not mean that his prudential judgements were right across the board. I say this because I think he got one thing terribly and tragically wrong. He thought that by explaining our faith better to the world that the world would turn to Christ. This was to misunderstand the fundamental opposition between Christ and the world.

    What actually happened is that the Church was precipitated into a vortex of division over the meaning of her faith (fomented in great part by free-masonry), thus allowing the world to mount a savage onslaught against the Church which endures to this day and shows no sign of cresting. The Catholic elites which emerged from the first and second world wars thought that with the Allied Victory over the Nazis peace had come to the world and let their guard down. This was a fatal mistake, and Satan saw his opportunity.

    September 5, 2015 at 4:49 pm
    • Faith of Our Fathers

      Sir your post is very accurate and especially your quoting the Samaratin woman at the well .Also we know Our Lords” let he who is without sin cast the first stone ” . We all contrary to Francis have the right to Judge what we do not have is the right to condemn . As regards Catholics being thrown to the Lions I think that’s only a matter of time,with regards to Muslims being persecuted no chance.

      September 5, 2015 at 11:07 pm
  • spudeater

    Looking at the mugshot of Kim Davis, I’m quite surprised that she was able to keep the smile off her face as I’m sure the last Beatitude must have been in the forefront of her mind as this maelstrom of indignant and legalistic malevolence swirled ever more ferociously around her: ‘Blessed are you when people abuse you and persecute you and speak all kinds of calumny against you on my account. Rejoice and be glad for your reward will be great in heaven’. Indeed the parallel between her situation and Acts 5:41 where the Apostles, having been beaten, admonished and dismissed by the Sanhedrin, ‘rejoiced for having been found worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name’ is virtually inescapable. Sounds like St.Peter’s mugshot had it existed would have shown him grinning from ear to ear! What a terrible indictment though, not of Kim Davis but of Western ‘civilisation’ that listening to and following your conscience lands you in prison. I can’t help but recall Cardinal Newman’s observation “Conscience is a stern monitor but in the present times it has been replaced by a counterfeit which is called right of self-will”.

    It seems to me that Our Lord has bestowed on Kim Davis the singular privilege of being the first person in the U.S. sent to prison for not kowtowing to the diabolical rebellion made manifest in the same sex ‘marriage’ law.
    Oh, and before Jersey Boy and Constantine (sic) cast a few more stones courtesy of Mrs. Davis’s highly irregular back-story, is not Our Lord even now offering her that same ‘living water’ which was freely given to the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar? ( And she was five times married and had already moved on to number six).

    And just as a footnote,Jersey Boy, I don’t know what the cows that supply what you put on your coco-pops in the morning have been eating but it’s certainly not conducive to clear thinking. I’ve heard of not being able to see the wood for the trees but in your case, I think it’s more like not being able to see the Truth for the World

    September 5, 2015 at 8:35 pm
    • Constantine

      Her non-biblically approved relationship history would not be approved… even by the editor herself under any set of circumstances. You can be sure of that. And now I’m away to feed my foxes… and their cubs.

      September 5, 2015 at 10:02 pm
      • editor


        I can’t see anyone who “approves” of Kim’s adulterous relationships – I’ve only skimmed this thread which has certainly sprung legs, if it’s possible to “spring” legs.

        The question is really, not whether or not we approve of her sinful past, but are we right to support her in the stand she has taken against same-sex “marriage” – should she be speaking out about the same-sex marriage issue or, more accurately, claiming conscience rights in line with her (now) Christian faith (I believe her various “marriages” took place when she was living an altogether Godless life) …

        Well, Our Lord says “yes” She should. At least according to St Francis de Sales.

        In a famous soliloquy, St Francis de Sales asks: “Lord, is it wrong to speak better than we act?”

        Reply: “No. If it were, then we would all have to remain silent.”

        So, while you are correct to argue that I would never approve her adulterous relationships, not in a million years, neither would I call her a “hypocrite” for speaking better than she acts (or has acted/behaved in the past).

        For then, as St Francis de Sales points out, we would ALL have to remain silent, we would ALL be guilty of hypocrisy – for we are ALL sinners. Even me. 😀

        Constantine, just to be clear, would you explain your own position on this. I’m not entirely sure whether you are playing Devil’s Advocate (allowed!) or whether you really do believe that, in fact, Kim should not have spoken out as she did given her own publicly sinful lifestyle in the past. I’d like you to explain your position on this. Just to be clear. Won’t affect your place on the pay scale – honest!

        September 5, 2015 at 10:35 pm
      • Constantine

        I imagine you late mother would have said to Kim (at first marriage point), you’ve made your bed, so lie on it.

        September 5, 2015 at 11:57 pm
  • Lionel (Paris)

    I just signed the petition

    September 5, 2015 at 9:57 pm
    • editor

      Thank you Lionel. You are a star in the French firmament!

      September 5, 2015 at 10:36 pm
      • Lionel (Paris)

        Not really

        September 6, 2015 at 3:24 pm
  • Constantine

    ‘Kim Davis Jailed – Is This Our Fate?’

    No, probably not, but an Extremism Disruption Order may come your way sooner or later.

    September 5, 2015 at 11:05 pm
    • editor

      Why? Are we not to be permitted to discuss issues, unless they are Government-approved?

      September 5, 2015 at 11:07 pm
      • Constantine

        Don’t tempt fate.

        September 5, 2015 at 11:32 pm
    • Athanasius


      Our Blessed Lord and His martyrs all had Extremism Disruption Orders issued against them by the godless of their time, so you could be on to something there. Did not Our Lord Himself admonish: “If they persecute me, they will persecute you also”?

      September 5, 2015 at 11:20 pm
      • Constantine

        Well, at least your taking heed. Will she? I wonder.

        September 5, 2015 at 11:40 pm
      • Constantine

        She wants to be a martyr…. I say we act generously and grant her wish

        September 6, 2015 at 9:51 pm
      • Therese


        You’re Caiphas and I claim my £5!

        September 6, 2015 at 10:03 pm
    • spudeater

      Never mind an Extremism Disruption Order…….. I’d settle for an Ordered Disruption of Constantine’s Functioning Internet Connection.

      September 5, 2015 at 11:58 pm
    • Muffin Man Returns

      Islamists, the secular left and the gay lobby were all in this one together.

      Extremism Disruption Orders would never have been considered if it wasn’t for one of those groups.

      The whole reason they were considered was because of Islamic extremism.

      But the government doesn’t want to upset Muslims by targeting them exclusively, so they had to include other religions as well, to make it pass the PC test.

      Of course, it is rather difficult to find many Christian extremists these days, so they had to ask the gay lobby for help in looking for them.

      You see, the Islamists, the secular left and the gay lobby were all in this one together. A frightening combined enemy.

      September 6, 2015 at 1:45 am
  • Santiago

    This is yet another example of the homosexual lobby being given precedence over everyone else. Why should two men who wish to sodomise one another be permitted to dignify their disgusting union with the title “marriage”? And why should anyone who rightly objects to this on moral or religious grounds have to suffer imprisonment?

    September 6, 2015 at 12:49 am
    • Muffin Man Returns

      We need not presume that they are engaging in sodomitic acts. Sodomy can occur in traditional marriage as well.

      Even if the partners in a homosexual ‘marriage’ were entirely chaste, and had been from the moment of the ‘marriage’, the fact that their marriage had taken place would still be immoral, and this remains true without us having to dwell on sodomy at all.

      I think we weaken our argument if we focus too much on sexual acts. Our objection to homosexual marriage focuses not so much on our objection to homosexual acts, but rather on the authentic meaning of marriage.

      I feel homosexuals have a good reason to be angry with us if we object to their marriages solely because they are homosexual. Our objections rather are less emotive and profoundly more deeper than that.

      September 6, 2015 at 1:36 am
    • Constantine

      Because, as the judge rightly said, fining people like her would not bring the desired result.

      Personally, I believe a 300-hour community payback order plus a six week diversity course would have more effect. Electronic tagging could also be used for repeat offenders.

      September 6, 2015 at 9:09 am
      • Therese

        Oh you’re not going far enough Constantine. Surely you need to take stronger measures. Where are the concentration camps? Not ready yet? I feel sure, if you read your history, you could come up with a final solution to the problem. I’m sure you’re just the man to do it, and you have so many models to inspire you, don’t you?

        September 6, 2015 at 10:08 pm
  • Muffin Man Returns

    How come you never hear about Muslims in the same situation as Davies? It’s always Christians.

    I don’t understand this, because Muslims are just as ‘homophobic’ as we are, and plenty of them work in the public sector.

    I reckon there have been plenty of Muslims who have made similar objections as Davies, but no one dared to take them up on it, for fear of being labelled ‘racist; ‘bigoted’, ‘Islamophobe’ etc.. Christians remain fair game however.

    September 6, 2015 at 11:54 am
    • Athanasius

      Muffin Man Returns

      Our Lady at Quito warned of all these things in her prophecies to Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres. She spoke of these particular times, times of the triumph of Masonry and the subsequent vicious assaults on Christian marriage and the innocence of the young.

      But she also said that just when they think they have the victory, just when all looks to be lost, she will intervene in a sudden and miraculous way. We may comfort ourselves then with the sure knowledge that the time of these godless people is very short. Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will very soon triumph and Lucifer will be cast down again into the abyss along with his servants. There is nothing more certain, nothing more imminent. God will not be mocked!

      September 6, 2015 at 1:24 pm
      • Prognosticum


        I seem to remember reading a long time ago on the internet about a Marian apparition in which Our Lady was referred to as saying that the U.S. would be punished for its infedelity through the weather.

        Does this ring any bells with you or any other blogger?

        September 6, 2015 at 3:23 pm
      • Athanasius


        I have never heard of any such Marian prophesy, and I have to say it sounds a bit suspicious. The most obvious reason for my suspicions being raised is that it’s not just the U.S. which is abusing power by imposing this evil on society. It is a deliberately planned and co-ordinated assault on the Sacrament of Christian marriage being rolled out across the globe right now.

        There will be a divine response to this and other grave crimes against God and the natural order, we have a number of authentic Catholic prophecies assuring us of this. But what that response will be and its extent is unknown to us. There are some hints that it will be a global chastisement so destructive that those left alive will think they are alone in the world. It’s a terrifying prospect, conditional of course on whether or not mankind returns to God in penance or continues in its sinful arrogance.

        If and when such a chastisement does come, it will be, says Our Lord, as in the days of Noah, that is to say, sudden, swift and unlike anything the world has witnessed before.

        The real worry for this world today is that it twists the infinite patience and mercy of God into an argument for His non-existence. What a shock so many poor deluded souls are in for if they continue down so crooked a road.

        September 6, 2015 at 7:17 pm
    • Fidelis

      I think the reason people are not persecuting any Muslim protesters (if there are any) is more to do with not wanting to be the target of a terrorist attack more than not wanting to be labelled a bigot or Islamophobe.

      September 6, 2015 at 7:14 pm
  • editor


    Doesn’t ring any bells with me, but then my memory isn’t the best. However, my “I told you so” faculty is still in full working order, as reading this article on Catholic Family News reveals – I think this is the obvious thread on which to share this latest craziness from the equality and diversity brigade:

    United States

    Polygamists sue to have their ‘marriages’ recognised

    MICHAEL COOK, editor of MercatorNet, reports: ‘It didn’t take long. Within weeks of the US Supreme Court decision to legalise same-sex marriage, polygamous families have sued to have their own relationships recognised as marriages.

    Kody Brown and his four wives are the stars of Sister Wives, the reality TV show about the day-to-day life of a polygamous family. The Browns used to live in Utah, where the government prosecutes openly polygamous spouses, so they have moved over the border. Nevada has a more relaxed approach to these issues.

    The Browns are on a roll. In December 2013 they won a legal victory when a Federal district court overturned parts of a Utah [statute] banning polygamous marriages. But the Utah Attorney-General has appealed. He claims that women and children in polygamous relationships are often abused and that courts have consistently reprehended polygamy.

    Jonathan Turley, the attorney who has taken up the Browns’ case, has filed a brief with the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals disputing this. Its fundamental argument is that the parade of cases which culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges make it clear that the state has no business regulating intimate adult relationships.

    ‘The very notion of a state today criminalizing the right of consenting adults to maintain certain private relationships is a regression to a prior century of state-enforced morality codes. Not surprisingly, the government relies on cases like Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), which has been widely condemned for its openly prejudiced and ill-tempered rhetoric against social, racial, and religious minorities.

    ‘Modern cases have consistently rejected the criminalization of private relationships, see Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), as well as rejected barriers based on moral and social bias, see United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). By only striking the cohabitation provision, the District Court left Utah with the same law maintained by most states in the Union prohibiting bigamy.

    ‘What was lost to the state is precisely what is denied to all states: the right to impose criminal morality codes on citizens, compelling them to live their lives in accordance with the religious or social values of the majority of citizens …

    ‘ From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions. This case is about criminalization of consensual relations and there are 21st century cases rather than 19th century cases that control.

    The Kodys are not the only polygamists who have sought protection in the courts after Obergefell. Another Sister Wives family, Nathan Collier and his two ‘wives’, Victoria and Christine, have sued in Montana to have their marriage recognised. ‘[D]isparate treatment of plural families denies them basic liberties, due process, and equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,’ they say.

    And, as gay and lesbian couples have been arguing, the trio claims that restricting a relationship to two persons is discriminatory and insults the authenticity of their love.

    ‘Obergefell essentially extended Lawrence’s holding to state that the ‘State cannot demean their [Plaintiffs’] existence’ by favoring monogamist couples over plural families by giving monogamists marriage licenses while forbidding plural families that same right.’

    Gay couples do not generally support polygamous unions. But the logic is the same. Stay tuned for more developments.

    [MercatorNet]2102.31 END…

    See what I mean?

    Gimme a break!

    September 6, 2015 at 5:38 pm
    • Alex F

      In fairness, if homosexual unions are to be recognised as marriage then so should polygamous relationships. In our libertarian society there is no reason why one group should have their relationships recognised and given status under law while another group cannot and in some cases face criminal prosecution for just marrying people they love- after all, that’s all marriage is about now, isn’t it?

      From a Catholic perspective, I would think that polygamous marriage is closer to Catholic teaching than same-sex marriage. If a man lays with his subsequent wife he commits adultery, but at least is within the natural law, while homosexual acts arenby definition, not open to the generation of new life, and in the case of sodomy, are sins against nature. The whole way we view marriage and sexuality is so distorted now, that what’s one more violation going to do?

      September 6, 2015 at 6:31 pm
      • Prognosticum

        Editor, Alex F,

        The Chief Justice of the United States in his dissenting judgement on the recent same-sex marriage case stated clearly that this would opn the door to the legalization of polygamy.

        What then of women’s rights?

        September 6, 2015 at 6:34 pm
      • Fidelis

        I think “sexual rights” are now considered more important than any other kind, even “women’s rights”.

        September 6, 2015 at 7:09 pm
      • Alex F

        Indeed. No one seems to suggest that a woman have more than one husband. It’s always the man who has more than one wife. While I have a certain amount of respect for any man who can live in a house with five women who all have PMT at the same time, it does seem to go against the modern principal of equality.

        The only thing I can see is that it would give second and third wives some legal protection. They couldn’t just be flung out the family home whenever the husband falls out with her. Most groups who practice polygamy are heretical religious groups who are not known for treating women well. Legal recognition of polygamy at least gives some rights to the subsequent wives.

        I hasten to add that I am not advocating polygamy, but pointing out the inherent contradiction in recognising gay marriage but not polygamy if that’s how people want to live. And at least polygamy is consistent with the natural law and it was allowed under the Old Law.

        September 6, 2015 at 7:09 pm
      • Fidelis

        What you are saying then is that the slippery slope is necessary for “equality” or legal protection for the “wives” – what a mess!

        September 6, 2015 at 7:13 pm
      • Alex F

        “I am in blood
        Stepped so far that, should I wade no more
        Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

        We are in a mess indeed.

        September 6, 2015 at 7:48 pm
      • Therese

        No one seems to suggest that a woman have more than one husband.

        That’s ‘cos we’re not daft, Alex!

        September 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm
    • Constantine

      The Pope says you have to take in refugees. I hope you will do your bit. I look after the foxes, you can take in a couple of families now you dearest mother has passed on.

      September 6, 2015 at 9:26 pm
      • Therese

        And I am certain that you will be taking in your quota, Constantine. Someone who is so concerned about injustice – like you – will be certain to be first in line. When are you doing your bit? (Foxes excluded, I’m afraid – I can beat you any day of the week on looking after animals so that doesn’t count in this game). Now’s your chance to show us the way; when are your family arriving?

        September 6, 2015 at 10:13 pm
      • editor


        Don’t try to turn this into a discussion about the “migrant crisis” – this is about Kim Davis’ unjust imprisonment. If you’re fed up discussing that, go onto the Medjugorje thread. Remember, the August threads will be closed within the next couple of days. Consider Therese’s concluding question as rhetorical – she won’t mind. She knows better than to risk her top place on the pay scale 😀

        I haven’t checked this yet, but I presume, given all her “marriages”, that Kim Davis has children, and I’m wondering about their ages and who is taking care of them. Gone on, Constantine, Google that information please and thank you and then return here fully on topic to enlighten me. Sugar Plum…

        September 6, 2015 at 10:15 pm
  • morgana

    The one who wants the attention in all of this is the judge .The two who wanted the licence have now been granted it according to news reports.She should remain strong and stand her ground against this injustice and bully boy tactics by this judge .What right has he to publicly announce that it will be his way off thinking or the highway.My opinion only stay in prison easy for me to say yes but she should not give in

    September 6, 2015 at 11:27 pm
  • John R

    The operation of lawlessness. It is amazing that alone Kim Davis has followed the law.

    1. SCOTUS overstepped its authority by making too broad a decision, by ignoring the traditional understanding of marriage, by recklessly overturning many recently passed amendments to state Constitutions, by PROVIDING NO NEW LAW BY WHICH LICENCES CAN BE ISSUED FOR SSM IN KENTUCKY and elsewhere, by violating thus positive law, natural law, and Divine law. Lawless Will substituted for Judgement (cf. Hamilton in Federalist 79)

    2. Davis abided nevertheless by the SCOTUS decision by not issuing any licenses and thus broke neither Kentucky Law nor the SCOTUS mandate.

    3. Davis was unlawfully incarcerated. The only remedies to remove her are by impeachment or voting her out.

    4. Aboveall the state has no authority to bind or loose marriages. Davis’ refusal to issue ANY licenses was thus clearly the best course.

    This entire case is nothing but a flagrant abuse of power and manifest disregard for the Rule of Law.

    September 7, 2015 at 8:27 pm
    • Athanasius

      John R

      Very well put, and absolutely correct. But will the judge in this case be brought to book? I doubt it.

      September 7, 2015 at 10:40 pm
  • Theresa Rose

    Will Kim Davis have to languish in prison indefinitely?

    I too have signed the petition.

    September 8, 2015 at 10:04 am
  • Theresa Rose

    I also meant to say that if Kim Davis does not change her mind, then will she be left in prison?

    September 8, 2015 at 10:47 am
    • Constantine

      She will remain at the penitentiary indefinitely until she either changes her mind, or resigns. She has apparently undergone a thorough search, been deloused and given several orange colour jumpsuits according to FoxNews.

      September 8, 2015 at 2:02 pm
      • spudeater


        You’re taking your first two syllables far too literally.

        And if the second sentence in your post is meant to be funny, may I remind you of the Third Rule of Comedy – LEAVE Them Wanting More. (Oh look, I appear to have left caps lock on for one word. How careless of me.)

        September 8, 2015 at 4:16 pm
      • Athanasius


        Thank you for highlighting still more the wicked injustice this poor woman is suffering for Christ. May the Lord bless her for her determined defence of the rule of law, both divine and natural. She’s a brave soul indeed.

        September 8, 2015 at 5:10 pm
      • Constantine

        She is being compared with Rosa Parks and (guffaw) Dr Martin Luther King. Some of her more extreme supporters are even encouraging her to do a Bobby Sands. Even you must think that is taking her so-called “martyrdom” a step too far. Anyway, she way too fat, it would takes months.

        September 8, 2015 at 6:26 pm
      • editor


        I’m truly surprised and disappointed at your unkind remarks about Kim Davis. You appear to think that only those without any sin may refuse to be complicit in the sin of another. You appear not to see the nonsense of the person who says “Well, since I’ve been a manifest public sinner myself often enough, I’ll help you to commit YOUR sins as well. Here’s your “marriage” licence.” Wink, wink.

        As for your remark about her weight – that goes beyond “unkind”. That’s nasty. Stop it.

        September 8, 2015 at 7:00 pm
      • Constantine

        Your far too sensitive. Now even FoxNews are giving up on this tiresome woman.

        September 8, 2015 at 8:49 pm
      • editor

        Don’t be ridiculous. If you think that video helps the cause of those who are agin this woman, you are spectacularly wide of the mark. What screams out from this video, is that to certain dimwits in the legal system in America, a Judge is above question. If we don’t allow Judges to throw people in jail at will we’ll have anarchy, about sums it up. Crackers.

        September 8, 2015 at 10:51 pm
      • Therese

        God isn’t concerned about looks, Constantine, only faithfulness to His Will. Kim Davis is showing a much greater example of Christianity than are you with your unpleasant remarks.

        September 8, 2015 at 8:30 pm
      • Constantine

        She’s getting out on condition she doesn’t interfere with the issuance of marriage licences, or she’ll be immediately returned to jail.

        Here five deputies have been ordered to file a report every fourteen days confirming she is complying with the order.

        September 8, 2015 at 9:06 pm
      • Athanasius


        The hounding of this woman, who has done nothing other than uphold the divine and moral law, demonstrates that what is presently occurring is demonic in origin. Sometimes we see the really ugly side of human beings through these kangaroo trials. It happened under the Nazis, under Stalin and now in the so-called free world. Free my foot!

        What does the old adage say: “there are none so illiberal as liberals”. How very true. But God will not be mocked, especially by those who abuse the authority he has entrusted to them to rule justly and morally.

        September 8, 2015 at 10:18 pm
      • Constantine

        … nor will SCOTUS be mocked.

        September 8, 2015 at 10:29 pm
      • editor

        Clearly not. Did you see the way those stupid lawyers laughed at the very idea that the Supreme Court may not have the right to impose any law they choose, whether or not it violates God’s law? Did you notice that? Those very same idiots would be expressing shock-horror if the same Supreme Court decided that divorce and contraception were responsible for the moral decline in the nation so would be outlawed from the first day in Octembre. Imagine the stramash if that were to happen.

        The video clip from Fox News posted above, really underlines the spiritual blindness, not to say the lack of plain common sense, among those regarded as “educated” and members of a (once) respected profession in the USA. Personally, were I unjustly incarcerated over there, I’d be saying “don’t worry about me… leave me here… I’ll be fine” – it would be easier and probably quicker to work out an escape plan than to rely on those brain-dead nuts for help.

        I really must do something about my easy-going nature. I’ll try to find an assertiveness course and enrol asap.

        September 8, 2015 at 10:58 pm
      • Constantine

        Comment deleted – off topic.

        Editor: There’s wall to wall coverage of the so-called “migrant crisis” on TV and newspapers/political blogs. No need to go over it all here. Please stick to the thread topic or use the General Discussion thread, if you must talk about it.


        Note: the person – first time blogger here – who submitted a comment containing only a link to a disgraceful website, please read our About Us section. Nothing containing crudity, even mild crudity, will be posted here and that was not mild. Don’t come back here unless you have something meaningful to say. The nastiness of that site towards Kim Davis, and your apparent unthinking acceptance of it, and sheer nerve in posting the link here without comment, especially on a first visit, confirms that, contrary to the article in that awful link, it is not God who “hates” Kim Davis but the Devil and his many useful idiots on earth. Reflect.

        September 8, 2015 at 11:38 pm
      • editor

        She’s getting out on condition she doesn’t interfere with the issuance of marriage licences, or she’ll be immediately returned to jail.

        WOW – democracy at work. Life in a “free” society… Supa Dupa!

        September 8, 2015 at 11:03 pm
  • morgana

    As I said above I hope this woman has the strength of her convictions and is able to persevere with her wrongful imprisonment because otherwise there will be more cases of religious freedom being swept aside and people being forced to accept things which they believe to be wrong.

    September 8, 2015 at 2:22 pm
  • editor

    Kim Davis has been released from prison – read more

    Don’t miss the remark from Hillary Clinton at the end – a woman who “upholds the law” about as faithfully as any of the Great Train Robbers. Now that IS hypocrisy, coming from a would-be President of the USA. Laugh? I thought I’d never start…

    Also, here’s an interesting report on the subject of the increasing pro-homosexual bias at Fox News, as demonstrated in the Kim Davis coverage, from Americans For Truth – note the video clips

    September 9, 2015 at 8:35 am
  • Stuart Hartley

    I notice that catholicconvert has what appears to be Cardinal Newman as is avatar. I wonder if he realises that Cardinal Newman was gay.

    Editor: rubbish. Cardinal Newman was absolutely NOT homosexual. This rumour was spread by the nasty Tatchell activists and has no foundation in truth whatsoever. Here’s an extract from a report on the matter:

    As rumours of Newman’s alleged sexual orientation swept the world, Archbishop Angelo Amato, the prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Sainthood, asked an expert on Newman’s life to respond.

    He personally commissioned the Dr Ker, a theologian at Oxford University and the world’s leading Newman scholar, to refute the allegations in an article for the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

    Father Ker, the author of the definitive biography of Newman, said there was no evidence to suggest that the cardinal was gay other than the deep grief at the death of his closest friend and the request to be buried in the same grave as him.

    ‘If wanting to be buried in the same grave as someone else indicates some kind of sexual feelings for the other person, then C. S. Lewis’s brother Warnie, who is buried in the same grave in accordance with both brothers’ wishes, must have had incestuous feelings for his brother which were mutual,’ wrote Father Ker. Source

    Game, as they say, set – as they also say – and match.

    Note: since this comment on Cardinal Newman is off topic, I have kept this newcomer in the moderation queue. He will not be permitted to comment here unless and until he does so within our terms and conditions as set out in the About Us section. First rule, stick to the topic. Best, then, if others do not respond to this post, although if anyone feels driven to publish anything further in defence of the Cardinal, I’ll turn a blind eye to that 😀

    Oh and Stuart, before you accuse me of not allowing free speech – guilty as charged. Report me to that American judge: now that there’s a vacancy in his local jail for people who reject his PC immorality, he may well see me as a suitable replacement for Kim Davis. I’m resigned to my fate… 😯

    September 10, 2015 at 7:34 pm
  • Leo

    “…we are the reproach of the rich, the contempt of the proud.” – Psalm 122

    How about this for a revealing glimpse of the gargantuan hypocrisy of leftist liberalism? No doubt these imbeciles with degrees are full of concern for polar bears.

    Really, this is nothing less than total war against the Social Kingship of Christ. I doubt very much whether these antichrist intellectual regressives are man enough to do any dirty work themselves. And if the Islamic rapists and throat slitters aren’t about the place, carrying out the red persecution, the law enforcement and judicial apparatus will do the needful in providing them with the white version.

    Just consider that what passes for University education now amounts to little more than groupthink and Alinskyite indoctrination camp propagation of the destructive evil of the Frankfurt School.

    If someone is unfamiliar with the cultural Marxism vector that is the Frankfurt School, the following should help.

    “For behold God is my helper, and the Lord is the protector of my soul.
    “Turn back evil upon mine enemies and destroy them in Thy truth.” – Psalm 53

    We know the ending. The Immaculata crushes the head of the serpent.

    Pray that these pseudo-educated spewers of hate convert before it is too late, and get off the bus to perdition.

    September 10, 2015 at 9:25 pm
  • Leo

    I have posted the following more than once before, but in these days of diabolically possessed revolt against the Social Kingship of Christ throughout what used to be termed the “Civilised World”, and the accompanying persecution conducted by the secularist, sexualist commissars, the minions of lucifer, the following really excellent article from the late Anthony Fraser, should make salutary reading for anyone still in an apathetic stupor.

    The link is courtesy of another robust defender of the Faith, The Eye-witness blog.

    There is plenty I could pick out for quoting, but hopefully the following will encourage people to devote a few very well spent minutes to reading this really excellent article.

    “The Henry the Eighths of this world and the LGBT lobby are not content to indulge in sinful behaviour. They want us to admit that it is not a sin: that their behaviour is natural. They don’t want anyone to disturb their improperly formed consciences even through silent dissent. They want to abuse our consciences. They want us to lie to satisfy their erroneous consciences. But as Solzhenitsyn warned us in From Under the Rubble(3): ‘ DO NOT LIE! DO NOT TAKE PART IN THE LIE! DO NOT SUPPORT THE LIE! … and then he explains ‘What does it mean, not to lie? It doesn’t mean going around preaching the truth at the top of your voice (perish the thought!). It doesn’t even mean muttering what you think in an undertone. It simply means: not saying what you don’t think, and that includes not whispering, not opening your mouth, not raising your hand, not casting your vote, not feigning a smile, not lending your presence, not standing up and not cheering.’ (4)
    As the above DOJ document indicates, ‘not saying what you don’t think’ is not an option: it is tantamount to silence – a silence which the high priests of secular humanism will not tolerate no less than would Stalin, Henry VIII, or Herodius.”

    September 10, 2015 at 9:27 pm
  • Leo

    “No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God….. Such passion for undue forms borders on madness. This vice disturbs the intellect, breaks an elevated and generous state of soul, drags great thoughts to petty ones, makes [men] pusillanimous and irascible, obstinate and hardened, servilely soft and incapable of anything. Furthermore, the will, being agitated by the insatiable drive for pleasure, no longer follows reason, but furor…. Someone who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pains in Hell than anyone else, because this is the worst sin that there is.” – St. Bernardine of Siena, Predica XXXIX, in Le prediche volgari (Milan: Rizzoli, 1936), pp. 869ff., 915, in F. Bernadei, op. cit., pp. 11f

    Repeat: “This vice disturbs the intellect…” and “the will, being agitated by the insatiable drive for pleasure, no longer follows reason, but furor”.

    Well, the insane beat just goes on and on. Now the doctors are in the crosshairs. I just wonder how many psychiatrists are going to publicly stand up for sanity. The way things are going, we might expect that they’ll struggle to make up a football team, and that might be a five-a-side team.

    September 14, 2015 at 5:43 pm
    • editor


      The loud silence from the medical profession on the subject of homosexuality and its ill-health effects (both physical and mental) is a particular interest of mine.

      A year or so ago I was having a minor procedure carried out in a hospital where two doctors a nurse were attending me (no, it wasn’t a brain scan and no they didn’t find one… 😀 )

      Anyway, the conversation turned to some issue on the subject in the news at the time, and I said what I’ve written in my first paragraph above. Now, we’d been laughing and joking throughout – until I said what I said: that I just couldn’t understand why doctors were not speaking out, when they MUST know that this behaviour is unhealthy.

      Silence. Total silence reigned thereafter. So, they know. Culpable and complicit are the terms that spring to mind…

      September 14, 2015 at 7:31 pm
  • Leo


    So, it looks like doctors are going to be required to take the hypocritic oath.

    September 15, 2015 at 1:57 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: