Is Kim Davis Misreading The Bible ???

In this silly misinterpretation of the Bible in The New Yorker, the author by twists and turns seems to have determined that Jesus would have tolerated same-sex marriage, and that Kim Davis also should tolerate the practice:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kim-davis-needs-to-read-the-bible-again

Yes, the New Testament amended the Old, but in what manner? Jesus Himself said this:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 5:17-18 KJV

That includes those parts of the law which Mr. Easterbrook suggests that no Christian would follow today.

Jesus' "modification" of the Bible consisted of instructing us that love should replace hate and that only G-d can punish sin. One of Mr. Easterbrook's errors seems to be that he thinks Kim Davis is motivated by hate and not love. Another error stems from his apparent belief that in forgiving sin Jesus was saying that the act being forgiven somehow was no longer a sin. On the contrary, although He freely forgave the sins of believers, Jesus always admonished the forgiven sinners to "sin no more". So while it is possible that He might have forgiven gay and lesbian sexual acts, I see nothing in the Old or New Testaments which support any claim that He would not have considered them to still be sins against the law.

Likewise, Mr. Easterbrook's interpretation of Paul's Letter to the Romans is quite misleading. Here is the passage he quoted, but in a wider context:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:24-27 KJV

It is ludicrous to suggest that Paul meant that if being gay or lesbian was "natural" to you that such a sex act was okay, was no longer unclean, did not dishonor your body, wasn't vile, wasn't unseemly, and/or was not in error (or "perverse"). In fact, if you read the entire first chapter of Paul's Letter to the Romans, you will realize that this particular passage is describing people who refused to glorify G-d or to thank Him and who worshipped idols instead, and that as a condemnation G-d gave them up to this perversion to magnify their sins and their ultimate punishment by Him.

It may be Biblically correct to maintain that Kim Davis does not have the right to punish anyone for their sins, but denying marriage licences is not a punishment. In fact, what she did was merely to confirm that she did not have G-d's permission to encourage other people to break G-d's laws, even if that was their express desire. There is nothing wrong with that, at least not Biblically.

I think it is Gregg Easterbrook, not Kim Davis, who needs to read the Bible again.