Posted on 09/07/2015 4:20:52 AM PDT by markomalley
Mike Huckabee defended Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has been jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, explaining she acted on the “only law in front of her,” Kentucky law.
Huckabee, appearing on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos Sunday argued that Democrats like Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Gavin Newsom have “thumbed their nose” at the Constitution but “a county clerk in Kentucky who, acting on her Christian faith, is criminalized, jailed without bail because she acted on her conscience”
George Stephanopoulos: Doesn’t she have the duty to obey a legal order from the court?
Mike Huckabee: Well, you obey if it’s right. So, I go back to my question, is slavery the law of the land, should it have been the law of the land because Dread Scott said so? Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it. I mean, that’s the fundamental question, do we have a check and balance system? Do we have three equal branches? Or do we have one supreme branch not just a Supreme Court? That’s the fundamental question. And George, that’s the bigger issue. This goes back to the larger issue, whether or not we learned in 9th grade civics is even still operative and why people are so angry across the country not just on this issue but others. It is that the ruling class has thumbed their nose at the the very Constitution. You’ve got Democrats who ignored the law when it was the law to have traditional marriage, Gavin Newsom in San Francisco as major, performed same-sex weddings even though it was illegal. Did he ever get put in jail? He most certainly did not. You had Barack Obama and Eric Holder when he was Attorney General, they ignored the rulings of DOMA, did they get put in law for ignoring the law? They most certainly did not. So when do liberals get to choose which laws they support but a county clerk in Kentucky who, acting on her Christian faith, is criminalized, jailed without bail because she acted on her conscience and according to the only law in front of her.
There is no moral equivalence here.
Good point
Agreed. I hope Huckleberry sticks with the “Free Kim Davis” crusade and runs hard on it. Despite his appalling big government inclinations, Huckleberry is a true Christian warrior.
“The SCOTUS ruling that Kim Davis is not in compliance with is a violation of the natural law”
Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and universally cognizable through human reason.
Since when has the Supreme Court been granted the authority to create natural law?
The USSC has ruled numerous times that state elected officials cannot be drafted to carry out federal dictates. This clerk cannot be forced to marry homosexuals. If the federal government wants gay marriage, it must provide the federal personnel to carry out the dictate.
This is explained in the USSC ruling Printz v US.
This is not the first time that lower courts have defied USSC rulings.
They don't. Natural law is built into the human being from His Creator.
As St Paul said (Rom 2:14-15): For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another
As Jefferson, et al, stated:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
And there are plenty of other citations, from Cicero, to St Thomas Aquinas, to Blackstone, to many of the founding fathers, that are applicable to the subject of natural law (they have been posted multiple times since the Kim Davis issue came up, so I won't bother).
But consider this from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:
I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
Never.
They have, however, had no qualms perverting the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold in order to create unnatural rulings that their twisted interpretations inflict upon us.
You posted:
“The SCOTUS ruling that Kim Davis is not in compliance with is a violation of the natural law”
I totally mis-read your post. I should have read: the Supreme Court ruling is a violation of natural law. Sleepy.
Most so called conservatives are fickle and weak. The left knows it and uses it to full effect.
“...the law Newsom violated was a just law. The SCOTUS ruling that Kim Davis is not in cmpliance with is a violation of the natural law.”
Huh?
IMHO
IMHO
Newsom ordered that sodomite "marriages" be celebrated in SF despite a state prohibition on the same. That prohibition was a just law in compliance with the natural law.
The SCOTUS ruling overturned all just and appropriate marriage laws within the US. That ruling overturned right reason and overruled the natural law in favor of the perversion of man.
There is no moral equivalence here.
....“The SCOTUS ruling that Kim Davis is not in compliance with is a violation of the natural law”
Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and universally recognizable through human reason.
Since when has the Supreme Court been granted the authority to create natural law?”....
Seeing as how almost all government positions now are filled, to what extent we do not know, with gay community members, does anyone other than me wonder whether we have folks on the Supreme Court who are members of that community? If so, they should have recused themselves from any ruling on any gay issue because of possible personal bias? Just a thought. It is extremely serious when you have 9 unelected people change a centuries old cultural rule which goes straight to the heart of natural law in a very short period of time and is a ruling which slams Christianity while giving nothing, really, to the gay community because they already are civilly accepted to live their lives together exactly as they want. To many, it looks like a move to destroy Christianity rather than to grant gays what they already have. It was a very short time ago that sodomy was considered to be a crime and homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder. I would say they have come a long way but now, a line has been drawn and this is not going away soon. Look for more Christian persecution.
Kim should have used the law rather than her personal feelings as the basis for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to homos. SCOTUS simply interprets law, not make it. Thus, until KY changes its laws, she has no obligation to follow the SCOTUS ruling.
Thanks.
I disagree. To use the lack of law (which I have argued on this forum) means that as soon as the KY legislature rewrites the law, she ends up back in the same position if her personal name remains on the license.
By emphasizing the religious violation, she is clearly showing that SCOTUS positioned the 14th amendment in direct opposition to the 1st.
Keep in mind that Davis and the KY County Clerk association tried to remedy the situation prior to the decision by getting the clerk’s name removed from the license.
Had she even elucidated her feelings more literately, I think things would be better off for her.
For example, I think it would have served her better had she discussed the idea of not being placed in a position to formally cooperate with evil.
Since a marriage license is essential and her signature is mandatory on those licenses, her signing individual licenses at the time of issuance would be formal cooperation with evil...on the other hand, if she signed licenses in bulk in advance, it would be immediate material cooperation with evil. In the case of formal cooperation or immediate material cooperation, the cooperator is just as guilty as if he/she performed the evil act him/herself.
I doubt she has the training in moral theology to understand the concept of cooperation with evil; however, it's pretty apparent that she has the idea down "by feel."
Along those same lines, she could state that she disregards this SCOTUS ruling as being just as morally valid as the Dred Scott decision. Both were a violation of the natural law.
Excellent analysis. The problem with gay marriage is that it wasn’t passed through our normal processes. It was decreed upon high.
The courts should have simply ruled that states can have gay marriage if they so choose, but that it’s not required. This ruling would have been very similar to how some states have the death penalty while others do not.
The truth is, some states would indeed vote to have gay marriage while others would not. It’s how our system works and until Kentucky actually votes to have gay marriage, it is not the country clerk who is breaking the law, it is the Supreme Court forcing law on them.
“Since when has the Supreme Court been granted the authority to create natural law?”
Or any law. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret law, not create law. The people voted to keep marriage between one man and one woman, the Supreme Court said no. They have in effect negated the people’s rights and the legislature branch of the government.
“The truth is, some states would indeed vote to have gay marriage while others would not.”
I may be wrong, but I thought that in every state where it came up for a vote, the people voted against homosexual marriage.
I wonder if he’ll get in to see her, or if the liberals who run that jail will come up with a convenient excuse to keep him away from her.
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.