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.
Page 5:
Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.
Page 27:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.
If the judge is going to cite the Supreme Court ruling, then where is this protection? Were there not other alternatives short of imprisonment that could have taken first, if they were serious about protecting the First Amendment rights, too, during all of this?
Furthermore, if we are to have a "rule of law," then must stop judicial legislation and let the laws that rule us come from our representatives, not as edicts from a "judge."
Page 5:
(5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.
There is the judicial arrogance for all to plainly see. The country doesn't have to wait for the representative process to work, because these few judges have an "enhanced understanding" and know better than the rest of us.
The Separation of Powers doesn't apply to them, and the separation of powers didn't apply to Kim Davis when an appointed judge jailed an elected executive.
-PJ
Commie Soros stooge John Podesta, chairman of Hillary for America, tweeted: “SCOTUS says LGBT couples can marry. Officials should uphold the law. Period.”
I would go beyond that.
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, there IS a law. In fact, there is also a Constitutional Amendment. Both say marriages between persons of the same sex are not permitted.
Now, since the XIV Amendment says in §5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" Congress could, in theory, pass a national homosexual marriages act which would supersede the laws and the Constitution of Kentucky. But they have not done so.
I suppose it is possible, under a very liberal construction of Article III, that if the persons who applied to Kim Davis for a marriage license went to the Supreme Court that that court could issue a writ of mandamus ordering her to give those two particular persons a license, but that did not happen.
So, what exactly does it mean to say that it is the "law of the land" that ALL same sex couples must, without litigation, be granted marriage licenses in violation of the laws and or constitutions of 38 states? I'm not really sure.
“What law?”
EXACTLY.
There is no applicable law for her to be coerced into acting on.
KY marriage law is very clear about who it applies to, and the applicable SCOTUS ruling has not been reconciled therewith. Ergo, either KY law still applies as written (and Kim Davis is obligated to adhere thereto, prohibitions included), or the ENTIRE section of KY law is vacated (by default, the whole section goes unless the section clearly directs otherwise) and there is _no_ law for her to act on.
Its an interesting idea. Divide and conquer is always the way with these folks.
No, but it sounds like I should have
Yeah...I feel you, bruh.
Can I get some he’p for a YT here?
I described the unfolding drama as a case of competing revolutions — with Kim Davis defying Justice Kennedy’s revolutionary act with a revolutionary act of her own. We knew from the beginning which revolutionary held more power, and we also know that the worst revolutionaries show no mercy to dissenters.
Not posting “ag’in ya”, just keeping all relevant info in the proper places.
I know you and I are on the same page, here.
my #30 was meant toward you.
He is showing his true colors.
?
Actually, I would support the Quaker in that hypothetical — the state would need to find a way of issuing permits without forcing the Quaker to do so.
We have conscientious objector status in time of war, exempt the Amish and Muslims from requirements to buy insurance. Not doing the same for, non-conformists (adherents of religions which don’t conform to the secular courts’ settlement of marriage) is a violation of the plain meaning of the First Amendment, and as it applies to public office, the establishment of a religious test in violation of Section VI paragraph 3, whether the black-robed tyrants see this or not, and an affront to the very foundations of this country from before independence when many of the colonies were founded by non-conformists to the secular settlement of religion in England.
A simple question....(I don’t know the answer to this without searching.
Did the Kentucky Legislature a gay marriage bill and the governor signed it into law ???
I am going to assume the answer is no. IIRC Kentucky had a gay marriage BAN. So this is the judge looking to thwart the will of the voters by judicial fiat.
Or signed her THIRD set of divorce papers. Not saying divorced people can't be Christian; just pointing out that 3 times shows a decided lack of commitment the the holy act of marriage.
Hey, fair is fair. Theocracy is always a bad idea.
New tagline.
Obviously the pinhead that wrote this doesn't know that Kim Davis was elected County Clerk before the rogue US Supreme Court "made homosexual marriage the law of the land" and now the same Federal and US Supreme Courts have via judicial fiat "made law" that they're not entitled to make under their Constitutionally defined limits.
But let's not let little details like that get in the way of destroying a good woman who's holding fast to her faith.
I stand with Kim Davis.
Christians do recognize that there are times when divorce is necessary. For example, a husband having a history of domestic violence against his wife. No right thinking Christian would tell a woman living in that circumstance that she cannot divorce.
Have another strawman you want knocked down there bunkie?
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.