What if everyone acted like Kim Davis?

September 8, 2015 (Catholic Culture) - Kim Davis has become a symbol of resistance to same-sex marriage for two reasons.

First, she stands alone. Well, not quite alone. There are other public officials who have vowed not to give their approval to same-sex marriages, but for various reasons they have not (yet) faced legal sanctions.

Second, in the Davis case, a federal judge has unleashed the full force of judicial power in order to crush resistance to same-sex marriage. Rather than seeking a way to accommodate homosexual couples without forcing her to violate her conscience, the judge chose to make an example of her. In other, previous cases, involving proponents of same-sex marriage who refused to carry out their legal duties, the courts have taken no such draconian action. Obviously Judge Bunning saw this case as a potentially important precedent, because if Kim Davis can resist with impunity, others will be tempted to do the same.

Well, let’s explore that possibility for a few minutes. What would happen if, across the country, hundreds or even thousands of clerks joined Kim Davis and refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Let’s imagine that in large swaths of America, homosexual couples were not allowed legal access to marriage, despite the Supreme Court decision claiming that this is their right. We’d have a constitutional crisis on our hands, wouldn’t we?

The crisis, in that case, would arise not from the actions (or inactions) of Kim Davis and her fellow clerks, but from the absurd and illegitimate decision of the Supreme Court. Our form of government is based on a system of checks and balances. But through the connivance of the executive branch, and the negligence of the legislative branch, the judiciary is now unchecked. There is no effective limit to what five members of the Supreme Court can do, through the arbitrary extension of their own power.

If hundreds or thousands of clerks joined Kim Davis, other public officials would be forced to ask some serious questions about what they were required to do. Police officers and court bailiffs and federal marshals and prison guards might ask themselves whether it was sensible to put so many harmless people behind bars. Judges might recognize the injustice of Judge Bunning’s approach, and look for other solutions. Members of Congress might even awaken from their slumber, and impose some limitations on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court—as the Constitution allows Congress to do.

Ultimately the power of government relies on the consent of the governed. When a branch of government leaps beyond its proper authority, as the Supreme Court did in the Obergefell decision, civil disobedience and passive resistance are natural ways by which the people withdraw their consent, and force—one hopes—a restoration of limited republican government.

This article appeared on Catholic Culture and is re-published with permission.

Kennedy sunk it in Windsor. Mona Charen wrote a stellar piece on Kennedy’s behavior in Windsor. And from that behavior and the fact that Kennedy’s mentor was homosexual, it was EASY to predict what he would do in Obergefell.

In fact I predicted it here on FR months in advance what the outcome of Obergefell would be based on knowing Kennedy. And in fact the day after Obergefell, Ted Cruz let loose and suggested a constitutional amendment as he specifically mentioned Kennedy’s name to reveal who the target was.

"The only real security of liberty, in any country, is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. That power which created the government can destroy it. Should the government, on trial, be found to want amendments, those amendments can be made in a regular method, in a mode prescribed by the Constitution itself [...]. We have [this] watchfulness of the people, which I hope will never be found wanting." - James Iredell, Elliot, 4:130. Iredell appointed by President Washington to First Supreme Court.
From the North Carolina History web site, comes this information about him:
When the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 proposed the federal Constitution, Iredell was its foremost advocate in North Carolina. He inaugurated the first public movement in the state in favor of the document and wrote extensively in hopes of creating a new government. In particular, he responded to Virginia’s George Mason’s eleven objections to the Constitution and gained national attention in doing so. A Norfolk printer, for example, shelved other political tracts in 1788 to publish Iredell’s “Answers.” The essay preceded 49 of the 85 essays that constitute the Federalist Papers and appears to have been widely distributed.
At the first North Carolina ratification convention, Iredell was the floor leader for the Federalist forces. After the 1788 convention refused to ratify the federal Constitution, he then wielded his influential and skillful pen to fell Anti-federalist arguments and champion the Federalist cause and the benefits of the Constitution. When North Carolina finally ratified the document at its second convention (1789), Iredell was widely considered the intellectual general of the Federalists’ victory. For Iredell’s ratification efforts, President George Washington rewarded the North Carolinian with an appointment to the original U.S. Supreme Court, where he served for almost a decade. (Even before ratification, his acquaintances had speculated that his future included a federal judgeship.) During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Iredell closely dealt with Presidents Washington and John Adams and offered vigorous and partisan support for their administrations. He also chronicled important events and personalities.

On the topic of "religious liberty," Iredell wrote:

"“Had Congress undertaken to guarantee religious freedom, or any particular species of it, they would then have had a pretense to interfere in a subject they have nothing to do with. Each state, so far as the clause in question does not interfere, must be left to the operation of its own principles.” - James Iredell - Debates on the Constitution, NC, 1788 (Appointed by Geo. Washington to First Supreme Court of the U. S.)

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.