Posted on 09/08/2015 1:23:16 PM PDT by Kaslin
If you have that sinking feeling that we’re living in a period of lawlessness, you’re not alone.
Something is very out of whack in America.
In Kentucky, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was led off to jail last Thursday for disobeying a federal judge’s order to issue marriage licenses to couples that lack a bride or a groom. Kentucky’s marriage law, part of the state Constitution that was put on the books by 75 percent of the voters in 2004, requires one of each sex.
Ms. Davis has been roundly denounced as lawless, but as a devout Christian, she regards the Supreme Court’s June opinion legalizing same-sex “marriage” as itself immoral, lawless and unsupported legally.
She’s also gotten death threats, and her leftwing critics are digging up accounts of her own marital difficulties – before she became a Christian.
Somehow, the same people who are calling her a lawbreaker either cheered or ignored it when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, or when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome presided at same-sex “weddings” despite California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. Or how about the liberal officials in “sanctuary cities” who are openly flouting immigration law?
Ms. Davis is apparently the first Christian to be arrested over the Supreme Court’s ruling. Others, such as bakery owners and florists, have been fined for not surrendering their consciences and servicing what they regard as celebrations of sin.
It’s anyone’s guess how Ms. Davis’s case will turn out, but her stance raises a very important question:
Is she the one acting lawlessly, or is it the people who are trying to force her to violate her conscience that are lawless?
Sitting in the Birmingham jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that critics found his activism, which included civil disobedience, “unwise and untimely.”
He responded, “One may well ask, ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘An unjust law is no law at all’…
“An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.”
Similarly, William Blackstone, the great English jurist and contemporary of America’s founders, wrote that English Common Law and its emphasis on human rights was based on the higher law of God and found in the Scriptures. As Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone Fellowship landing page notes: “Because of this, man lacks authority to write a law that contradicts God’s law. In fact, this was the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence. Blackstone called this concept ‘ultra vires,’ which means it is beyond the authority of man to write a law that violates God’s law.”
Which brings us to Ms. Davis. She could have just resigned, or given in and issued marriage licenses to couples lacking a bride or a groom. But she chose to follow Kentucky law, as well as that of a far higher power.
On Sept. 1, Liberty Counsel, which is representing Ms. Davis, released a statement from her. Here’s an excerpt:
“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. … I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Ms. Davis is a canary in the coal mine, whose plight shows clearly how the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead directly to crises of conscience for Christians and others who thought they lived in a country whose Constitution explicitly protects religious liberty.
Don’t fancy borders, you say? Meh, don’t enforce ‘em.
Don’t have a hanker for preventing drug dealing..? Ah, well, just let the dispensaries stay open. Just CUZ.
Ah, a lady with a conscience? CLAP HER IN IRONS..!!!
We ARE living in a lawless country now.
That “law of the land” liberal psychobabble is wearing about as thin as the race card. If something is “the law of the land”, why don’t the Democrats have to work within the law like the rest of us?
:)
Absolutely. Our Declaration of Independence nails it.
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
And according to our Constitution, marriage is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government and therefore is reserved to the states and the people to decide.
Judges do not have the constitutional authority to overrule the majority of the people in the majority of states who have consented to just laws.
Homosexual marriage is not the law of the land. It's not a law at all and if it was, it'd be an unjust law.
Very well said. Also it is Congress who makes writes the laws not the Supreme court and since Congress did not not make such a law the Supreme court had no business to make marriage the law of the land
She is acting in accordance with Kentucky law.
It is the judge who wants to throw out the law.
Don't worry. That will all be fixed on September 25 when the UN rolls out The 2030 AGENDA.
Uh huh....pass the TUMS.
Selective enforcement...and which state or federal law is she breaking? In the Obama administration, Rex Lex!
We need to find a stick to jam into the wee”s of SMS.
If one state declares polygamy to only be restricted to Men and women, but allows it between five men, or five women, we may have the catalyst. SSA would have to factor five SS earning between five people. Men who want more wives could sue. If Kentucky allows it SCOTUS will need to write more law. They will have to rule, all are entitled, or none, or some.
SCOTUS needs to own it’s ruling.
Somehow, this has to hit them in the face.
I can remember another President who refused to enforce immigration laws. And in fact had one of his thugs prosecuting Border Patrolmen.
I’m trying to forget the SOB, but he won’t go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.