Why one Baptist Pastor is totally wrong about Kim Davis

Pastor Russell Wilson, a pastor of a Southern Baptist church posted the following on Facebook regarding Kim Davis.

Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.

First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.

Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.

Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.

This is why we are losing.
This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.
Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.

We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.
We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.
If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self.

All three points are wrong although point one is partially right but not because the pastor understood in any way about what he was saying.

1. By virtue of her holding the office of county clerk, Kim Davis is ordained by God to punish evil and be a terror to evil-doers as stated in Romans 13. She was fulfilling this by refusing to grant fictional marriage licenses to sodomites until she abdicated her responsibility by asking for an exemption based on her “religious liberty.”

2. Her own marital past is irrelevant. To attack her is to engage in ad hominem which is a logical fallacy. Should she endorse evil because she has sinned in the past? The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that some of the Christians to whom he was writing used to be adulterers and sodomites but that Christ had washed, sanctified, and declared them righteous. As a Christian, Kim Davis stands before God in Christ’s perfect righteousness. According to Hebrews 10:17 God no longer remembers her sins and lawlessness. This Baptist pastor has made a fundamental mistake regarding the gospel by accusing Kim Davis of her past sins.

3. There has been no evidence presented that she did this for personal gain. If anything, the charlatans of the religious right establishment have been using her for their own personal gain.

We are losing this battle because of the widespread belief among Christians in “religious liberty” which is religious pluralism which is contrary to the 1st commandment. The correct response to this situation was to exercise the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. She was doing so until she abdicated her authority. There were also several officials from the sheriff all the way up to the governor who could have interposed themselves in order to prevent the federal judge from carrying out his tyrannical orders and forcing the acceptance and sanctioning of sodomy.

Please read about the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates. http://lessermagistrate.com

It is also important to note that the standard by which rulers are to punish evil and be a terror to evil-doers is the righteous law of God and not any standard of man. Every person knows that God exists and is accountable to God for that knowledge. Sodomites hate Kim Davis because she was reminding them of their sin and their knowledge that the true God does exist. All unbelievers despite knowing that God exists do everything they can to suppress that truth in unrighteousness. Paul explained in Romans 1 that God will give those that continue to suppress knowledge of Him over to a reprobate mind.

Change your mind and believe the good news today! Christ offers forgiveness to all who trust in Him for salvation.

Facts about Kim Davis case – why she is correct and SCOTUS and Judge David Bunning are wrong

1. Kim Davis was elected and swore or affirmed to uphold the Kentucky constitution, which only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.

2. Supreme Court reinterpreted or decided that there was no law against (but certainly no law in favor of) gay marriage.

3. Kim Davis determines this new interpretation is not consistent with the Constitution (u.s. , not state) as it was when she swore her oath.

4. Supreme Court doesn’t have actual jurisdiction over Kentucky state offices

5. Kentucky governor orders clerks to comply with SCOTUS

6. Kentucky governor has no standing.

7. Kentucky Supreme Court is only court with jurisdiction.

Kim Davis’ religious views really have no play in this. Her religious conviction can drive her actions, but this is purely a states right issue. She is not bound by the SCOTUS decision. The law has to be changed at the state level with a vote put to the people of Kentucky.
She is not breaking any law.

As Kentucky law stands:

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).

And so what would be a violation of KRS Chapter 402? Oh, well if the clerk issued a license to known relatives, someone who already has a living spouse, someone underage, AND to couples of the same sex. Read the law!

In Kentucky only persons of the opposite sex may enter into marriage. See Elkhorn Coal Corporation v. Tackett, Ky., 49 S.W.2d 571, 573 (1932). Thus in Jones v. Hallahan, Ky., 501 S.W.2d 588 (1973), the court held that the attempted marriage between two women was not a valid marriage since by being of the same sex they were incapable of entering into a “marriage” as the term is defined by common usage. The court concluded that it could find “no constitutional sanction or protection of the right of marriage between persons of the same sex.”

Look it up. She’s upholding KY laws. People just need to stop with the narrative that she is being persecuted for her religious belief. Belief, or not, she is legally in the right.

Sodomite marriage is not wrong because it infringes on religious liberty

Sodomite marriage is NOT wrong because it infringes on any particular person’s so-called “religious liberty” — it is wrong because it is a violation of God’s Law. He classifies this particular conduct as both sinful AND criminal while commanding civil authorities to enforce His classification on such conduct.

The pantheistic approach advocated by most professing Christians in this country – particularly leaders, is: (1) a treasonous violation of the First Commandment in that the form of law one advocates for IS a recognition of Sovereignty; (2) a rejection of God’s Law for the statutes of Omri (humanism – Micah 6:16); (3) a refusal to provide justice to either side of the issue because “justice is sent away backward”; and (4) is precisely the approach, as one gentleman properly noted, which has kept abortion “legal” in this country long enough for at least 55 million deaths not counting what has been exported.

It was God’s Law as the legal and social framework, though not perfectly developed, which allowed freedom the room and opportunity to grow in our early history. What we are trying to pursue is the fruit of that faith without the root of that faith. Professing believers love, absolute love, making themselves victims instead of being victors as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. When Christians adopt any way other than God’s Law, we deprive the world of salt, light, and any genuine opportunity of freedom they may have.

Poem: A Civilization in love with sodomy

I think that I shall never again, have in my sight
A “Civilization” in love with the sodomite

A man whose hungry appetite
Is prest against his catamite

A man who is a Canaanite
Now hailed as our great White Knight

A man who thinks of his penis all day
And then without irony says, “I’m gay”

A man who now demands the right
to be a sexual Troglodyte

A man who will do all to join the fight
to change the day into night

Cultures are made by the Great King’s Lex
But only Lucifer can destroy with sex

by Pastor B.L.M.

Judge declines divorce case because SCOTUS ruling is unclear “when a marriage is no longer a marriage”

Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied a couple’s divorce petition citing for his reason that the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell is unclear about “when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”

Read the rest of his brilliant opinion regarding the SCOTUS marriage ruling below.


The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 2015) affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee. Borman v. Pyles -Borman, Tenn. Ct. App. Case No. E2014- 01794- COA-RV- CV, filed August 4, 2015. This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’ s judiciary must now await the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage. The majority’ s opinion in Obergefell, regardless of its patronizing and condescending verbiage, is now the law of the land, accurately described by Justice Scalia as “a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power.” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2629 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Thus, it appears there may now be, at minimum, ( and obviously without any specific enabling legislation) concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal courts with regard to marriage/divorce litigation. Perhaps even more troubling, however, is that there may also now be a new or enhanced field of jurisprudence—federal preemption by “judicial fiat.” Preemption, being based upon the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2), has generally been effected by the U.S. Congress through federal legislation. See Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct 1591, 1595 (2015). Further, there is (or at least there once was) a presumption against finding preemption of state law in areas traditionally regulated by the States. California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 101 (1989). Regardless of this presumption, and regardless of the states’ traditional regulation of the area of marriage and divorce, and regardless of what might now arguably be concurrent state and federal jurisdiction to address those issues, what actually appears to be the intent and (more importantly) the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to preempt state courts from addressing marriage/ divorce litigation altogether. The presumption of concurrent state-court jurisdiction is overcome by “a clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests.” Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct 740, 748 (1981) (quoting Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 478 (1981)). According to the majority opinion, “marriage is a keystone of the Nation’ s social order” and is “a central institution of the Nation’s society.” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2590 (emphasis added). Perhaps Tennessee’s perspective concerning keystones and central institutions must submit to the perspective of those so much higher and wiser than ourselves. To say the least, Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18, having been adopted by the people of the State of Tennessee in 2006 as reflecting the will, desire, public policy and law of this State, and to be applied by its judiciary, seems a bit on the incompatible side with the U.S. Supreme Court’ s ruling. Interestingly, Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18 is barely mentioned[1], let alone expressly overruled, by Obergefell. In fact, the only reference to Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18 in Obergefell this Court has located is in one of the opening paragraphs—not in the holding. One would think that if the U.S. Supreme Court intended to overturn all or part of a state’s constitution, it would do so expressly, rather than by implication.[2] The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans, corporately, have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces. Consequently, since only our federal courts are wise enough to address the issues of marriage—and therefore contested divorces—it only follows that this Court’s jurisdiction has been preempted. At least, according to Justice Scalia, the majority opinion in Obergefell represents “social transformation without representation.” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2629 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It also appears to have removed subject matter jurisdiction from this Court. As a result, the Complaint and Counter-claim are dismissed.

Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism, implementation of this apparently new “super-federal-judicial” form of benign and benevolent government, termed “krytocracy” by some and “judi-idiocracy” by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court. In any event, it should be noted that the victory of personal rights and liberty over the intrusion of state government provided by the majority opinion in Obergefell is held by this Court only to have divested subject matter jurisdiction from this Court when a divorce is contested. Individuals, at least according to the majority opinion, are apparently authorized (along with the federal judiciary) to define when a marriage begins and, accordingly, ends, (without the pesky intervention/intrusion of a state court) leaving irreconcilable divorces under Tenn. Code Ann. 36- 4- 101( 11), Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 4- 103, and perhaps even Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4- 129 to some degree (but only when the grounds and/or irreconcilable differences are stipulated), intact and within the jurisdiction of this Court to address.


1. In all candor, this Court feels the inclusion of Tenn. Const. art. XI. § 18 once in a string citation stretches the definition of the word “mentioned.” See Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2593.

2. Perhaps, by implication, Tenn. Const. art. I, § 2, has been similarly overruled? It provides: “That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” Tenn. Const. art. I, § 2.

Full text of ruling.

Should we be in favor of gay rights?

God’s Law-Word reveals death as the proper punishment for sodomy.

Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

It is no different than implementing the proper punishment for other crimes such as murder, stealing, etc. Thus, the only rights sodomites should have is a fair trial.

Is homosexuality a choice?

Mankind was created in the image of God as male and female. Thus, every person is born with a natural affection for the opposite gender. To pervert that affection is to rebel against God on the most fundamental level. God’s common grace prevents most men from becoming sodomites, murderers, or other types of degenerates. It is only the most depraved and rebellious men that God gives over to such abominable acts. But, only by God giving them over to their sinful desires can they commit such acts.

Romans 1:28-32 And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly; having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoredom, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil dispositions; whisperers, evil-speakers, God-haters, insulting, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, unintelligent, faithless, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; who the righteous judgment of God having known—that those practising such things are worthy of death—not only do them, but also have delight with those practising them.

Marriage is at the foundation of Christian theology

The history of mankind begins with a wedding in the garden. The relationship between God and Israel is analogized as a marriage. The re-creation began with the miracle at a Wedding in Cana of Galilee. The relation between between Christ and His elect congregation is analogized as a marriage. Finally, history is consummated with the Marriage feast of the lamb.

When marriage is perverted, foundational Christian theology is destroyed. Whenever foundational Christian theology is destroyed, marriage and the family are destroyed.

Why did God create gay people if being gay is a sin?

Often, sodomites and supporters of sodomy ask Christians “Why do you think God created gay people of being gay is a sin?” However, the question could be restated, “why did God create man with a sinful nature if sinning is a sin?” Of course the answer to the original question and the restated question is that God had a purpose in allowing Adam and his descendants to sin.

Here are a couple verses which speak to the question of why God created man with a nature prone to sin.

Romans 11:32 For God closed up all of the ones in disobedience, that all
of the ones he should show mercy.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture consigned the whole under sin, that the
promise of belief of Jesus Christ should be given to the ones trusting.

Romans 8:20 For to vanity the creation was submitted, not willingly, but through the one submitting it, upon hope;