Posted on 09/06/2015 4:20:07 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
’m sympathetic to Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who has stopped signing marriage licenses. In her position, I’d do the same.
Her decision was straightforward, it seems. After Obergefell, the Supreme Court decision mandating a national right to same-sex marriage, Davis decided that she could not affix her signature to documents perpetuating the falsehood that husbands can have husbands and wives have wives. To do so would be to act in a way contrary to her conscience as formed by her Christian faith. With admirable consistency, she decided to stop signing marriage licenses altogether, not wanting to discriminate against gay couples.
One can judge Davis mistaken about the dictates of her conscience. Perhaps she is wrong about what Christianity teaches about marriage, as many liberal Christians argue. Perhaps she is mistaken about the implications of signing a marriage license. There might be a clever Jesuit who can convince us that her signature on same-sex marriage licenses should not have troubled her conscience.
One angle for the casuist: When the Supreme Court issued its decree, American civil law ceased to define marriage and instead became a law of civil unions, with the word “marriage” now having no real meaning. With that sort of reasoning, I might be able to wiggle my way toward signing licenses that say “marriage” but really mean “civil union.”
Whatever we might think of the moral or legal substance of the matter, however, we cannot claim Davis has misunderstood her situation. One of her duties as county clerk now asks Davis to do what her conscience tells her she must not do. The way forward is clear: She must obey her conscience. She must act, as she puts it, “under God’s authority.” That’s exactly right.
Many modern people have the wrong impression that conscience is active, impelling us to do things contrary to the law. This is not the tenor of Davis’ stance in Morehead, Kentucky. She is not issuing counter-opinions to refute Obergefell. Nor is she campaigning to get other county clerks to join her. There have been no press releases, no assertive shrill spirit of protest on her part. That’s the progressive mentality, which tries to upgrade its political ambitions with appeals to conscience. Instead, Davis simply won’t do what her conscience tells her she cannot do. She’s not acting contrary to the law; She’s not acting at all.
Some might say that her refusal to sign marriage licenses disqualifies her from holding her position as county clerk. She should resign or be removed. People are certainly entitled to that opinion. But Davis does not think she must resign. The county clerks in Kentucky are elected, so she can’t be fired. She could be impeached, but that’s for the legislators of the State of Kentucky to decide. And the citizens of Rowan County can vote against her in the next election. Conscience, properly exercised in civil disobedience that otherwise respects the law, isn’t always easy to dislodge.
I can imagine some harrumphing about the notion that Davis respects the law. After all, isn’t she refusing to act in accord with it?! I find this worry rather rich when expressed by progressives. For decades, elite colleges and universities run by progressives have made arrangements with local police that allow students to use drugs and drink while underage, free from the worry of arrest. These sorts of special arrangements, which are widespread in elite institutions, are not criticized for the obvious ways in which they undermine the rule of law.
Under the circumstances, Kim Davis poses little threat to the rule of law. Her actions have done nothing to prevent gay couples from getting marriage licenses throughout Kentucky. The couples that present themselves for her signature can easily go to the next county, as I’m sure heterosexual couples in Rowan County have done over the last two months. She’s not making grand public statements about a supposed right to dissent. She’s done nothing in the way of organizing resistance to Obergefell. No counter-revolution.
So why the furor? Because her refusal poses a symbolic threat to “marriage equality” and its claim to realize the high ideals of justice. One word of dissent, one act of conscience, disturbs the serene confidence of progressives that they have a monopoly on all that is right and good.
Neither you nor I nor Kim Davis have a “right” to follow our consciences. That’s silly. Our consciences do not wait upon the niceties of rights. I would not protest if higher authorities decided to remove Davis from her position. The law has a proper claim on public life, even if it does not have a final authority over our consciences.
Our legal and political system has no final authority over us, because there is a higher one. At times, one ought not to do what one is told to do. Kim Davis finds herself in just that sort of situation. Good for her. She’s doing something noble: quietly following the dictates of her conscience.
R. R. Reno is editor of First Things.
Therefore Davis is not just following her conscience. She is following the law.
KY *had* a marriage law, but it was declared unconstitutional by the USSC. Therefore the law they had before was null and voice. But they haven't any replacement law. The KY legislature has not passed another law, nor can the USSC do so, as they are a court, not a legislature.
So as I understand it (I suppose some lawyer could call me wrong) here is now no legal provision for anyone to issue anyone a marriage license in KY.
So David was doing exactly right by issuing no marriage licenses to anybody, and declining to authorize he deputies to do so; though she did not herself explain it in terms of KY being without any law providing for civil marriage.
Every County Clerk in the state ought to refuse to do what they have actually no legislated authority to do: issue licenses for something no longer provided on the state level.
Spot on article!
I will be here Tuesday at 3:00 PM ET....Ya’all come on over...
Kim Davis supporters have been calling, emailing, and using social media to ask, “What can I do to help Kim?” Liberty Counsel has already heard from pastors who are sending buses of supporters to the rally on Tuesday. If you are near Kentucky, here is a great opportunity to stand against judicial tyranny and the unlawful imprisonment of Kim. Join us on Tuesday, September 8, at 3:00 p.m.!”
Tues., Sept. 8, 2015 at 3:00 PM ET
Carter County Detention Center
13 Crossbar Road, Grayson, KY
First Things has been rather disappointing since its Founder died. I was a subscriber until then. Your brief comment certainly makes a lot more sense.
The GayKK seeks another Christian to lynch.
Pop singer Madonna’s openly gay brother Christopher Ciccone sums it up best! Some gay people do understand liberty. His observations of Kim Davis and Obama’s “Rule of Law” are right on!
I don’t think that judge will have a happy life after this.
I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion, you are 100% correct, Mrs. Don-o.
Time is truly wastin’
There’s no guarantee, yeah
Smiling’s gonna make it
You gotta fight the powers that be
Got so many forces
Stayin’ on the scene
Givin’ up all around me
Faces full o’ pain
I tried talkin’ about it
I got the big run around
And when I rolled with the punches
I got knocked on the ground
By all this bullsh*t going down
Time is truly wastin’
There’s no guarantee, yeah
Smiling’s gonna make it
You gotta fight the powers that be
I'd advise everybody to download a copy of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and either read it, if you haven't already, or re-read it, as the case may be. You will come away with a better understanding of Kim Davis and what she's about.
If she is refusing certificates to homosexuals based on the Bible, why does she provide certificates to anyone? Marriage that is government approved is not Biblical, and marriage that is Biblically approved is no business of the government.
My reasoning is based on a pretty simple argument.
It's not as simple as just a ordinary case of civil disobedience where punishment is meted out and one accepts that as the price you pay.
While all that is true in this case, she does have the protection of the Constitution on her side. She should not have been arrested and detained, but the judge wanted to make a example of her. A fine, he apparently has concluded, would have been paid for by donors.
IMO, the SCOTUS decision on it's face is unconstitutional because it infringes on the free exercise language of the Amendment and the Bill of Rights...
In the past, the only issue that arose was the conscientious objector to military service and this was dealt with by compromise.
On this new objection, all compromise has be rejected. So that is not the purpose of her arrest.
The purpose of her arrest is intimidation! To strike fear into the hearts of Christians and anyone objecting to giving this special status to gays, and now tranny's want theirs too..
I have to stand against that....It is my duty as a citizen to do so. And that is how she sees this as well.
When this new so called law was issued by scotus, she did stop issuing licenses to anyone...gay or straight.
That ship sailed 100 years ago...
The author is wrong. Ms. Davis greatest threat is to the I station that the left uses to dictate its will upon us, that is she threatens the hegonomy of the blacked robed Marxist tyrants on the supreme court. We as citizens must say no to the unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court and going forward demand that congress remove constitutionally decision making authority from the SCOTUS. An authority not granted by the constitution but one usurped by Marshall’s court. Say no to tyranny. Say no to the SCOTUS unconstitutional rulings.
Yeah, there are many gays who understand this in the same way we do and they also think that the marriage issue was a bridge too far.
They have said that a civil license was adequate.
But again, that’s is not what this is really about is it...
It’s about driving Christians and all objectors to the curb.
I know of no time in Jewish or Christian history when marriage was not acknowledged by government. Not that governments licensed it, but that they acknowledged it as a pre-existing institution, and often supported it by related legislation, e.g. penalizing adultery, incest, or family-abandonment, or setting the terms for bride-price, dowry, inheritance of land and goods, etc.
Ok, fair enough.
I want all Progressive Liberal mayors of major U.S. Cities that are "sanctuary cities" to be arrested for not enforcing the law.
Further, I want all Progressive Liberal mayors of any sanctuary city to be charged as accessories to any crimes committed by criminal, illegal aliens and put on trial.
Can't have it both ways, Libtards. You can't argue to enforce a law you agree with, while arguing to not enforce a law you don't agree with.
When the backlash starts, it's gonna be a real bitch.
To help with her defense, do we donate to Liberty Counsel?
I think that would be fine.....I am not soliciting for them however..just want to make that clear..
In 1858, Adam Crosswhite and his family fled southern slavery and settled in Marshall, Michigan. Bounty hunters found them, and the family was arrested and housed in Calhoun County jail until the extradition hearing. The local people were incensed, and mobbed the county jail at night. They broke in and took the Crosswhites into hiding. I don’t recall all of the events of the case. A stone monument marks the incident in Marshall, Michigan.
I loved Madonna’s brother’s comments.
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.