by Pauly Fongemie
September 9, 2015

My dear Miss Kelly, the segment on Kim Davis was informative, hard-hitting but fair as always and I thank you once again. However, you offered an example of a potential conscience claim as part of the "where does it stop" implication by virtue of your query to your guest. That example is a fiction of your imagination. What do I mean?

You posed the question what if Catholics did not want to issue marriage licenses to the divorced. Fair enough in of itself, but the proverbial straw man, for two reasons:

1. When people apply for marriage licenses the clerk has no way of knowing if they are presenting themselves truthfully - they could be attempting bigamy, for instance. The clerk has to take them on good faith. So unless they were notorious and the bigamy attempt was obvious, such a refusal would never happen. The same with divorced couples, but even less likely. Why? Because Catholics who are divorced sometimes have valid annulments, which entitles them to remarriage - who is to know? Only the Church and the couple, so the scenario you painted does not even remotely exist. For over a hundred years we have had practicing Catholics elected to the same position as Kim Davis with no conflicts in re divorce and remarriage. And surely a woman as sharp as you are must realize this. Those Catholics with a tender conscience simply do not aspire to those positions in those locales where they know almost everyone, in the first place, because they want to avoid the legal morass, their Faith number one with them, so here the possibility is entirely absent.

2. Even if a Catholic would know about a certain couple he never would interfere because 99 percent of Catholics compartmentalize their beliefs from public practice, because they have been de-Catholicized and re-Americanized to such an extent they have no idea about most of which we are discussing here. I also know this because we have many Catholic city and county clerks throughout the country and they have been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples all along, some in San Francisco even before the US Supreme Court got involved, and they did so against the law, but none of them were jailed for violating the state's or county's idea of the law. This is because they were not claiming Christian conscience and were political liberals. By definition they get a pass. The hypocrisy is so thick one would need a machete to cut through its ghastly facade. Thus, if they have no qualms with their conscience about same-sex couples, you can bet your top and bottom dollars they do not have any at all about divorced couples they actually know about, since same-sex couples are almost always evident to even the untrained eye.

Your proposition is bogus on its face. Only little people who are newcomers to the public square and all of its ramifications, and also fairly new to the Christian ethic as is Mrs. Davis, are penalized.

The Court had no authority to dispense with the natural law as it did with Dred Scott and Roe. Since it has and our system of redress leaves but protest as the Supremes appear to be supreme as in tyrants, the Court created a tangled web, the implications now in the days to come are just beginning to unfold.
This is the punishment from God when we fiddle with Divine law, the natural law being at its most elemental and fundamental in society. The more we try to fix the unexpected, but could have been foreseen if reason were in full operation, instead of emotion, the more complicated things get. There is nothing in the US Constitution on marriage - in fact, Chief Justice Roberts told us the decision had nothing to do with the Constitution and he ought to know, certainly. And Justice Kennedy admitted the court used emotion not reasoning, and then two of the Justices, if they were ethical would have recused themselves because they have "married" same-sexed couples. Moreover, the aforementioned Kennedy is a Catholic and it was his vote that clinched the pact with the devil.

All of this can be avoided by simply honoring the natural law which is actually above any Constitution; but we are beyond this now in our arrogance and usurpation of the rights of Almighty God, and most Americans have no clue, they just go along to get along, so the rest of us are abandoned to the role of hostages of fortune, so to speak. The alien has more rights than most of us. We still uplift the US flag, but have no more country, we still uphold the Faith, but have no more parish church with safe entry. There is more than one way to become a refugee, only in this case we have nowhere to flee. But we hope and pray and forgive and keep going because this is our bounden duty under the Kingship of Jesus Christ. The dreadful Dred Scott ruling was overturned after decades and decades of suffering and protest and yes, obstruction of "justice" in some cases by necessity. If so, Dred, why not the other infamous blights on the Court's record? I will not lay down and roll over like a trained dog, I will continue to protest, speak out and try to educate others. I know what is right, not because I am right, but because it is dead wrong to sacrifice what is true and good and just for the sake of political and social acceptance. Right is always right even if everybody is against it, and wrong is always wrong even if everybody is doing it. There's plenty of company in Hell - all of it miserable; there's a lot of company in Heaven, too, all of it bliss, and both for eternity ...

No, Megyn Kelly, you and your liberal friends in the media have absolutely nothing to fear from almost every Catholic in the country - they are too busy worrying about climate change and other liberal nonsense. Their local pastors are seeing to that. Ask yourself, who went in support of Kim Davis and who refrained among the GOP squad? Two Protestants. Two Catholics criticized her. She may not be perfect as none of us are, and she may have chosen a different means of protest than some of us would have, but knowing she is sincere and a neophyte, a lamb before a pack of marauding wolves, I just felt bound to support her. This is one Catholic who intends to be more than one in name only, even if I, too, occasionally stumble, sinner that I am. But I know how to ask for God's mercy in the tribunal of Confession and I know how to forgive, both those with malice and those in ignorance through no fault of their own, which is the majority in my experience.

You contribute so much to the public good, when I can stay awake, I will keep tuning in,
A real fan in Maine