Lawbreaker Kim Davis and the lawless Ted Cruz [WaPo Barf-worthy column]

Washington Post ^ | 09/05/2015 | Dana Milbank

[Steve_Seattle]

"Now Cruz, who took an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution,” wants people to defy the Supreme Court’s authority?"

FDR - one of the great liberal icons - openly said he would defy the court's authority on some matters.

[SeekAndFind]

Civil disobedience is fine when it advances liberal causes. But we're a "nation of laws" when the laws favor leftists.

Even in the case of Kim Davis, it can be validly argued that SHE is the one who is UPHOLDING the law and the Judge who jailed her is the one violating it.

SEE HERE:
Judge orders Kim Davis to jail but his order was against the law

Did Kim Davis violate the law and should she have been jailed? The answer is quite clear: Davis upheld the law, and the judge's order is unlawful and, indeed, criminal and tyrannical.

According to Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 402.005, marriage is defined as:

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

The chapter also goes on to point out that Davis was right in following the law as to who is not permitted to receive a marriage license. 402.010 reads:



Degree of relationship that will bar marriage. (1) No marriage shall be contracted between persons who are nearer of kin to each other by consanguinity, whether of the whole or half-blood, than second cousins. (2) Marriages prohibited by subsection (1) of this section are incestuous and void.

The chapter continues in 402.020 to prohibit other marriages, including those between members of the same sex, spouses who are married and seeking another marriage without divorce and polygamy.

Finally, it is noteworthy that 402.080 states, "No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk."

So, Kim Davis has followed the laws of Kentucky and, I might add, the laws of God concerning marriage. Who then is the violator of law in this matter? First, the sodomites are the violators of these laws in their attempt to get a marriage license. Second, the judge in the matter is in violation of the law by ordering Davis to do what is unlawful.

Frankly, it seems high time the people of Kentucky stop protesting and start demanding that Judge David Bunning and members of the Supreme Court be impeached and that sodomites be held accountable lawfully for their criminal behavior. Like I've said before, if we would deal with the crime of sodomy lawfully, we wouldn't be at this crossroads where so many people are confused about marriage.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Well how else can you defend the Constitution? The Court over stepped it bounds, found homosexual marriage were none existed before and basically wrote law.

As Justice Scalia noted, the constitution is SILENT on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Therefore, when the constitution is silent, it tells us this:

10TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

The power to determine whether same-sex marriage is legal or not is NOT a power the constitution gives to the Federal Government.

Therefore, it has to be determined by (according to the constitution ) — THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE.

The State of Kentucky HAS marriage laws and it prohibits same-sex marriage.

Therefore, Kim Davis ( and by extension Ted Cruz and those who defend her ), ARE NOT the ones who are lawless or breaking the law.

It is the 5 justices, who ignore what the constitution says who are the LAWLESS ones.

The right decision for the SCOTUS to have made IMHO is to throw it back to each individual states and let the representatives of the people (via legislation ) or the people themselves ( via referendum ) decide how they want marriage laws to be.

This, the 5 justices DID NOT DO. They are the ones who are USURPING power, something the constitution does not give them.

[IronJack]

Civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily mean breaking the law. In this case, it might. But in any case, when the government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed, it is no longer a legitimate government. So its laws hold no weight and do not bind free men and women.

[MarvinStinson]

Washington Post metrosexual Dana Milbank, huh?

[MarvinStinson]

Watch Dana Milbank DANCE for his leftwing masters.

[Cold Heat]

Whatta turkey turd!

This guy needs a forced Jack Daniels enema.

[tbpiper]

Yep, you’re right.

[madprof98]

He forgot to tell us the judge who put Davis in jail is a “devout Catholic,” but the Post covered that for him in a separate article. These people are simply evil. All of them. I don’t want to live in the same world with them.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: He forgot to tell us the judge who put Davis in jail is a “devout Catholic,”

I find it interesting that a lot of these well known “devout Catholics” ( note the quotes ) are both pro-choice and/or pro-gay marriage.

Among them:

Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
Andrew Cuomo
John Kerry
Dick Durbin
Patrick Leahy
Claire McCaskill
Barbara Mikulski
Pattu Murray
Anthony Kennedy
Sonya Sotomayor
Ted Kennedy (RIP)

[madprof98]

A veritable communion of saints . . .

[MarvinStinson]

If the Supreme Court invented some bogus right out of thin air that forced Muslims to choose between violating their faith and being fired/imprisoned, liberals would be the first ones to point out how many parts of the Constitution had been violated (although they would badly butcher the analysis) and to call for open civil disobedience.