Posted on 09/04/2015 6:57:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Working for the government is not an inalienable right. So Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, was wrong to refuse same-sex couples marriage licenses in her office. If you’re unwilling to enforce the law, you shouldn’t be an officer of the state. After all, it’s not a clerk’s job to ascertain the constitutionality or practicality of a law. If it were, we’d have anarchy. There are hundreds of other vocations she is free to pursue if this one doesn’t suit her.
So Davis’s stand isn’t about religious freedom. Not really. Signing off on state documents is not tantamount to being forced, as bakers and photographers have been, to participate in a wedding ceremony. There are certainly bigots out there intent on coercing Christian businesses to choose between their faith and their livelihood; this isn’t one of those instances. If you want to participate in civil obedience, don’t work for the state.
But jail? Davis was taken into federal custody Thursday. She was held in contempt of court for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. She now faces potential penalties, fines, and prison time. She will almost certainly be destroyed.
Let’s start with the prevailing hypocrisy surrounding the attacks on Davis, a Democrat, and what it tells us about the state of American political debate and policymaking in 2015 — because as you may have noticed, the rule of law only seems to be sacred when it happens to comport with liberal values.
As far as I can tell, there are only three unassailable constitutional rights left in the United States: the right not to be “discriminated” against, the right to have an abortion, and the right to have a gay marriage. In the eyes of liberals, nothing — not the freedom of association or religion or anything else mentioned in the First Amendment or Second Amendment — will ever supersede these consecrated rights.
The rest? Well, it’s malleable, depending on the situation.
When GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio commented that Kentucky should probably respect the beliefs of county clerks, John Podesta, chairman of Hillary for America, tweeted: “SCOTUS says LGBT couples can marry. Officials should uphold the law. Period. What’s next, Professor Rubio?”
Professor Podesta, you may not know, makes his living advocating that presidents should ignore the rule of law by circumventing the legislative process and creating regulatory regimes to battle climate change. Now, obviously, there are legal distinctions, but in the grand scheme of things, Podesta embraces the same kind of moral authority to exhibit contempt for the rule of law.
#share#But a pliable deference to law is not unique. When Democrats say states should find ways to undermine the First Amendment by weakening the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United — as unfettered political speech from a couple of libertarian billionaires is problematic to their mission — they are applauded for the effort.
In America, we have a city council in Denver that advocates shutting down a business such as Chick-fil-A because the CEO once took a public position against gay marriage. In this country, people who are here illegally can march in the streets to proclaim their rights without any genuine fear of being rounded up and expelled. They are celebrated. Moreover, we have cities across this country that ignore immigration laws they don’t like and create sanctuaries from law. We have cities that ignore federal drug laws because they find them oppressive. Yet no one finds himself in jail. When Californians approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, a number of officials refused to enforce the law. They were celebrated. I may even agree with the impulse. But not one elected official has been hauled off to jail for any of these stands.
Yet a Christian struggling to come to terms with the implications of a decision that the Supreme Court reached only a couple of months ago — and that our progressive president embraced only a couple of years ago — is hauled off to jail. In the end, the state is creating martyrs. Christians will have no choice but to take more obstinate positions in these battles of the culture war — battles that could easily have been avoided if a judge had exhibited more compassion and come to an accommodation. There are about 125 other marriage clerks in Kentucky who can issue licenses to gay couples. And they should.
Or we could go the other way. And if we’re going to be rigid about the rule of law, let’s throw all officials who ignore it into cells. We can start with the president and work our way down.
— David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.
I just heard the pinheads on FNC say that “even President Obama has to follow the rule of law.” Since when? Why isn’t he doing it? What a load. FOX has sped up their drift to the left. The Constitution is the law. The Kenyan pisses on it every day.
What does this klown think we have now?
Something does not make sense, here.
I am reminded of Westboro Baptist, the Leftist front group that the Left could point to and declare how Christians are bigots.
Davis is the one clerk who is outed Christian, the other five would do the deed. But the sodomites went to her specifically, KNOWING it would provoke a confrontation.
Davis is also a Democrat. Is this another setup?
Go tell that to Baraq.
If it were, we’d have anarchy.
We already have anarchy. Judicial anarchy that is. Judges cannot legislate from the bench. Until a law is duly passed by a state legislature and signed into law by the governor, there is no law. The federal government has no say in marriage as that power is not granted to it in the US Constitution.
You know, you may be on to something. All the Left does is stir the sh*t pot so they can take advantage of the chaos which ensues. Where were her strong Christian values when she pulled the lever for the ‘rats?
There is no law of the land. That’s f***ing BS. The law of the land is what ever the Republocrats want it to be. Show me where the constitution guarantees the right to an abortion or a marriage license. Show me where it states that the children of illegal aliens are automatic citizens because their illegal immigrant madre pushes them out on American soil. Show me where the constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved only for men who belong to a federally controlled military unit. You can’t show me any of that because it doesn’t exist but yet it’s the law of the land somehow.
:: wrong to refuse same-sex couples marriage licenses in her office ::
Ummmm, NO!
KY-AdminCode defines marriage and says that there is no such thing (AKA: moot) as a marriage between persons of the same sex [http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/frntpage.htm].
A Federal Judge cannot simply nullify State Law/Code without the agreement of the people residing in that same State.
The more I’m reading about the incident, the more I’m beginning to think this is the courtroom version of a “false flag”.
Has a public official ever been thrown in jail for refusing to issue concealed-carry permits because they just don’t think people should have guns?
Still waiting for the IRS to obey the courts on the Lois Lerner thing.
National Review Nancy-boys lockstep for satan.
This was authored by David French? Something isn’t right here.
I’m curious as to the KY-IRS allowing such “same sex couplings” to file their State taxes as ^married, joint-filing” when the KY Code says such “marriages” are moot.
The law only matters when the left says it does. haven’t you been paying attention, lol.
I think the situations would be different. The Quaker would take the job knowing the parameters of the job; Mrs Davis took the job and the rules were changed after.
I am trying to think through the issue of making rules for various jobs or professions which necessarily keep people out on moral grounds, for example, some have proposed that all med school students participate in an abortion in order to graduate, but here we have a clear case of the requirement being added after the fact so the issue is more clear.
They'd go to a more gun friendly official.
This argument is moot anyway. Marriage is not a Constitutional right. Homo pseudo "marriage" is just a judicial fiat or a dictatorial pronouncement.
The right to gun ownership and self defense IS in the Constitution. It's as clear as day. Homo "marriage" (what ever that is suppose to mean ) is not.
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.