Posted on 09/04/2015 7:02:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I must confess to harboring a sneaking admiration for Kim Davis.
Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for contempt of court after defying a judge’s order to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, is in the wrong, inarguably: The proper course of action for a government official who has a moral objection to carrying out his public duties isn’t obstruction but resignation.
Jonathan Adler, writing in the Washington Post, reminded us of Antonin Scalia’s argument about the death penalty: If the justice believed that his official participation in the legal machinery of death was immoral, then he could not be a judge while capital punishment remained on the books. Scalia offers this position in contrast to the practice of Justices Blackmun, Brennan, and Marshall, who voted categorically to overturn death sentences in direct contravention of their legal duties. For the four and one half minutes they spent reading Adler’s article, our so-called liberals were at one with the jurisprudence of Antonin Scalia. Would that the moment had lasted.
Davis is a recent convert to something the New York Times calls “Apostolic” Christianity. Christian congregations without exception think of themselves as apostolic, but here is meant the Apostolic Christian Church of America, which is committed to Biblical inerrancy and prefers the poetical and errant King James Version. It is one of those great do-it-yourself American religions that make one grateful for the glacial conservatism of the Catholic magisterium, even (especially) during a Peronist papacy.
Doctrinal disagreements to one side, prison is an excellent place for a Christian.
It is also an excellent place for a patriot. Legally speaking, American marriage is debased: The “traditional marriage” we hear about from time to time simply has not existed as a legal institution in the United States for about 40 years. Under current law, marriage is a purportedly life-long union that is in reality rather less durable than a federal student loan; that being the case, extending marriage as a legal institution to homosexual couples is a peculiar hill to die on. I might have had more sympathy for a Los Angeles county clerk who declined to issue Zsa Zsa Gabor her ninth marriage license. Context matters. But the Obergefell decision is nonetheless illegitimate.
Every act of principled noncompliance with the law is a miniature Declaration of Independence, which is to say, a revolution in one person. There is an excellent history of that among our own patriots, from the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. to the great newspaperman R. C. Hoiles, who was threatened with prison by Franklin Roosevelt’s government for the ghastly crime of giving his employees a raise without federal permission, which was at the time illegal. (Rumor is that this was the last time the staff of an American newspaper received a pay raise.) The heroic example is that of Henry David Thoreau, who was put in prison for refusing to pay a tax in support of James K. Polk’s slaving and warmongering government. Prison, he wrote, is “the only house in a slave state in which a free man can abide with honor.” Thoreau was very annoyed to be set free when a benefactor paid the tax on his behalf.
The legal enshrinement of homosexual marriage is not slavery or its moral equivalent, nor is it Jim Crow, nor is it abortion, the definitive moral issue of our time. And a society that is to have the rule of law cannot abide very many revolutions in miniature, especially those conducted by the people we still describe, with almost-straight faces, as public servants. As much as one might admire Davis’s conviction, David L. Bunning of the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky is right to put her in jail.
But maintaining that rule of law is a broader imperative, and Davis’s transgressions are trivial next to the entrenched criminality of the government that Judge Bunning serves: The Internal Revenue Service under the Obama administration was converted into a crime syndicate; Hillary Rodham Clinton is a rolling crime wave; the Justice Department is an enabler and protector of felons in high places; our law-enforcement agencies have been made into instruments of political intimidation, as in the matter of the ATF’s persecution of Jay Dobyns. There are many honorable men in the federal government, but there are no honorable federal officials, because one cannot honorably serve a dishonorable government. We may call Judge Bunning “His Honor,” but that is purely vestigial.
“Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,” Thoreau reasoned, “the true place for a just man is also a prison.” That we breathe the same free air as Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is a testament against us, that we may have a finer understanding of the distinctions necessary to republican self-government but lack the conviction necessary to act on it.
— Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent.
America is dead. It's because a majority of “conservatives” think this way.
How many Clerks in liberal States issued Gay Marriage Licenses against the STATE LAWS, not a court decision but STATE LAWS, in some cases STATE AMENDMENTS TO STATE CONSTITUTIONS!
Remember Proposition 8 in KaliFornia?
I wonder how many liberal clerks were Imprisoned going against that..... Probably Zero, they just got a tiny welt on their wrist after their slap on their wrist....
Too complex for Donald Trump to understand. He thinks judges passed laws and we should only obey.
A real revolutionary there, not.
I see Kim Davis committing a true act of civil disobedience, and not shrinking from the consequences.
As somebody here on FR mentioned yesterday, what’s the difference between Davis’ choice and that of Rosa Parks?
The thing is that it cant be refuted.
We would call for him to be removed from the post or we would be screaming about how he could have been elected in the first place.
I posed this question regarding gun laws that were struck down by SCOTUS, and so far no one has been able to answer.
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" as the author suggests, 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
Suicide.
A better example would be a radical Muslim who works in the Department of Motor Vehicle and refuses to grant driver's licenses to women based on some religious objection to women driving.
If she has to resign, then that is a violation of the “religious test” clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The *ONLY* way for the FedGov to do what their doing is to pass a Constitutional amendment that:
1. Delegates to the Fed the authority to define marriage.
2. Vacates the “free exercise” and “religious test” clauses of the Constitution when they conflict with Fedzilla’s definition of marriage.
Anything else is *TYRANNY*.
Martin Luther King Jr. said: “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
I stand with Kim Davis.
Death by electing Progressive Liberal Democrats and worthless Republican RINO's I think is more accurate.
Oh wait, that's suicide.
Nevermind, Carry On!
Kim Davis was given a harsh penalty to serve as an example to others. I’m heartened that at least one other Kentucky clerk has joined her in refusing to issue licenses. More, please.
-PJ
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.