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
That “have protection” has an important caveat: “teach”
Kennedy’s ruling redefined the interpretation of “free exercise” limiting it to teaching rather that “living”.
Essentially reducing it to the “freedom to worship” interpretation Progressives have long sought.
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.”
Kim Davis should have simply asked the question: “You say I should follow the law. Fine. What exactly is the law I should follow? There are 5 sections of the Kentucky Code that deal with marriage. You have said they are unconstitutional because it does not give you the result you want. Does that mean that you are declaring that Kentucky currently has NO LAW for marriage? If so, I am not required to do anything, so I am in compliance with the law.
If the entire marriage code is not void, then exactly what is the law? Have you rewritten the Kentucky code so it satisfies your ruling? If not, how can I possibly agree to enforce it. If so, where is a copy of that law, and your authority to insert it into the Kentucky code which by the Constitution of Kentucky is the sole responsibility of the Kentucky Legislature and the Governor of Kentucky.
If you have a problem with Kentucky laws governing marriage, you should hold the Kentucky Legislature and the Governor in contempt, not me -— I am just following the Kentucky code as written
So, you want me to follow the law? Show me the law you want me to follow. Until then, by definition, I am in compliance, not in contempt.”
That should get Kim off the hook. Then, the Federal Judge either backs down, or will actually order the Kentucky Legislature to revise their code (in which case I will buy lots of popcorn.)