Skip to main content

This is not a wedding cake. This is not a matter of flowers. What it is is unconscionable- and unconstitutional.

This from the office of Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod President Matthew Harrison:

We are in legal Never Never Land — uncharted territory within a society and a legal system increasingly averse to Christians living faithfully in their vocations. Pastor John Hill, president of the LCMS Wyoming District, filled me in yesterday. The decision of the Wyoming Supreme Court on the case of Wyoming Judge Ruth Neely has landed. By a 3-2 majority, they ruled Judge Neely — a faithful member of an LCMS congregation — is guilty of 3 of 4 ethics violations filed by the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics. Here’s part of the ruling:

“We decline to remove Judge Neely from her position as a municipal court judge; such a punishment would ‘unnecessarily circumscribe protected expression,’ and we are mindful of our goal to narrowly tailor the remedy;” and “We conclude that Judge Ruth Neely shall receive a public censure; Judge Neely shall either perform no marriage ceremonies or she shall perform marriage ceremonies regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation.”

It will be up to the circuit court judge to decide if she shall continue as a circuit court magistrate. Both the seriousness and the ridiculousness of this ruling are amply demonstrated by three paragraphs from the minority decision of two Wyoming Supreme Court justices:

[109] A reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would know that Judge Neely was never asked to perform a same-sex marriage, and had never refused such a request. He or she would know that all who work with her have expressed unreserved confidence that she will be absolutely fair and impartial to all litigants, whatever their sexual preference. Such a reasonable person would know that Wyoming law does not require Judge Neely to perform any marriage. He or she would know that the law prohibits judges and other public officials in Wyoming from denying marriage to same-sex couples, and no same-sex couple has been denied marriage by or because of Judge Neely’s statements. Further, a reasonable person would know that there is no indication that any same-sex couple is likely to be denied or delayed in obtaining a civil marriage because of Judge Neely’s statements or religious beliefs. A reasonable person would know that if asked to perform such a marriage, Judge Neely would assist in finding an appropriate officiant and that there is no shortage of such officiants. A reasonable person, apprised of these facts, could not conclude that Judge Neely’s statements gave the appearance of impropriety nor that they eroded public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. To the contrary, a reasonable mind would conclude, as Ms. Anderson did, “it would be obscene and offensive to discipline Judge Neely for her statement ... about her religious beliefs regarding marriage.”

[161] In our pluralistic society, the law should not be used to coerce ideological conformity. Rather, on deeply contested moral issues, the law should “create a society in which both sides can live their own values.” Douglas Laycock;Religious Liberty and the Culture Wars, 2014 ... That is precisely how Wyoming has approached the matter since its founding.

[163] There is no cause for discipline in this case, nor for concern, if Judge Neely is not disciplined or precluded from performing marriages. Same-sex couples have full access to marriage, all persons before the courts can be certain of an unbiased and impartial judiciary, and religious individuals can remain in public office even if they hold a traditional religious view of marriage. Judicial positions are filled without either side insisting on a religious test for who may serve. There is room enough in Wyoming for both sides to live according to their respective views of sex, marriage, and religion.

District President Hill writes, “Our thanks to you and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod for the encouragement, prayers, and support offered on behalf of Judge Neely and her family, her pastor Kevin Rose and her congregation in Pinedale.”

Our thanks to YOU, District President Hill, Pastor Rose and all the great folks in Wyoming and beyond who stand with us, the First Amendment and the truth of God in Holy Scripture. Thank you, Judge Neely, for the civil and Christian conviction to stand in the face of tyranny.

Pastor Matthew C. Harrison
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

This is not a matter of discrimination. This is a matter of judicial tyranny, plain and simple. It is yet another example of the determination of the social Left to deny those who disagree with it the right to comport themselves in accordance with their own moral and religious convictions- to compel everyone to behave according to their convictions by the use of brute legal force.

And it is both utterly un-American and utterly intolerable. Moreover, it should not and cannot be tolerated so long as the First Amendment remains in force.

"Inclusiveness," indeed!"

The Montana Supreme Court's action is in direct and flagrant defiance of the United States Constitution, not only in punishing Judge Neely for her religious beliefs and the public articulation of those beliefs, but in implicitly establishing a religious test for judicial office in Wyoming.


Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

A third party President in 2020?

I had the pleasure of meeting Joel Searsby, the campaign manager for Evan McMullin last year, at an event for Evan here in Des Moines during the campaign. Here's an interview with Joel by Jon Ward of Yahoo News on the ways in which centrist French President Emmanuel Marcon's out-of-nowhere landslide election last year may serve as an example for the inevitable bid to elect a rational, moderate third party candidate in 2020.

I have a feeling that it will be Evan McMullin again. But names like John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio, and Sen. Lindsey Graham also keep popping up. Word is that Kasich may challenge President Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination, an endeavor in which I'd wish him well but hold out very, very little hope for his success. I sadly expect that my conviction that the Republicans are dead as a vehicle for rationality and the reuniting of our fractured and divided country to be confirmed by the easy renomination of the most unfit and unqualified preside…