Thursday, September 3, 2015

The last sin of relativism

Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis has sinned in the eyes of the Lord Pharisaical secular progressives. Her sin is not actual sin, it’s her recognition of sin as such. You see, it’s not that she has had three divorces. It’s that she has applied moral discernment while being thrice divorced. Having made mistakes in the past renders her unfit to apply rational moral thinking.

“The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life.” –U.S. News and World Report

Don’t misunderstand. Liberals aren’t upset Kim Davis got a divorce. That would be judgy and preachy. They’re upset that a sinner objects to sin. Since everyone is a sinner, no one is a sinner, and the only real sin is objecting to people’s sin. Because we’re “born this way” and we have no agency in our righteousness. It’s Jonathan Capehart’s absolute relativism in operation. Being judgy is the last and only sin of relativism.

Is this hypocrisy? Only if the commandment to purify yourselves in Jesus’ blood is hypocrisy, a convenient trope for the nihilistic relativism of our age. If Davis had a sinless past, she wouldn’t be a hypocrite, but a bigot. Not a great improvement.

Davis has taken the interesting tack of denying all marriage licenses since the heinous Obergefell decision became the “law of the land” since June. On reflection, I would do the same. Reading Anthony Kennedy’s gobbledygook opinion, I am very confused as to what civil marriage is and what its boundaries are. The Supreme Court or the Kentucky legislature needs to provide clarification, lest we unintentionally discriminate against throuples, blood relatives, and pederasts.

“Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.” –Anthony Kennedy, Obergefell v. Hodges

The disaster of Kennedy’s lack of a limiting principle is clear. As a county clerk, just who can I deny the dignity of a marriage license to?

No comments:

Post a Comment