Kim Davis taught us how bad liberals really are

If there is one overarching observation that I could make from the discussions I've seen on the internet about Kim Davis' recent imprisonment, it is that there are a powerful lot of uninformed, inarticulate, cognitively-challenged folks out there on the information superhighway. It seems like any place you go where there is an article about Kim Davis and her refusal to issue illegal marriage licenses to homosexual couples, you will quickly find yourself surrounded by mouth-breathers raucously asserting that she "deserved to go to jail" for "breaking the law" and "violating their constitutional rights." Even "conservative" establishmentarian pundits like George Will have gotten in on the act, proving once again that the repetition of common, though uninformed, opinions may often seem to be an adequate substitute for deep analysis, no matter who you are.

However, the only thing that these responses have really done is to show just how terrible liberals really are for the health of America's national discourse. They are shallow and uninformed, they are in many cases purposefully deceitful, and, frankly, they are often overtly malicious and evil in their beliefs and actions.

First, to the part about their shallowness and ignorance. We are at a point where any time the name "Kim Davis" is mentioned, some gay "marriage" supporter is sure to crawl out from under their rock and start spewing forth pseudo-legalistic mumbo-jumbo that they saw on Salon or heard from Jon Stewart. Gay marriage is now "the law of the land" and Kim Davis "broke the law" by not issuing marriage licenses to gays.

The problem with all of this "analysis" is that it is complete and utter bunkum – every last bit of it.

I believe that it is inaccurate to refer to what Kim Davis did as "civil disobedience." That term carries with it the implication that a law was being broken (hence, the "disobedience" part of the term). Yet, Kim Davis broke no law. She was "disobedient" to not a single statute on the books anywhere at the federal level or in the state of Kentucky. In fact, I've asked dozens of these comments-section counselors what actual law Kim Davis did not obey. To date, not a single one has actually been able to cite a law chapter-and-verse that she broke. This is because Kim Davis broke no law. Just because the Supreme Court issued an opinion (more on this below) that state laws and constitutional provisions specifically forbidding gay "marriage" were unconstitutional does not mean that gay "marriage" suddenly became legal in all of these states. In most states in the union, including Kentucky, the laws on the books still make no provision for giving marriage licenses to two people of the same sex, even if the specific forbidding of such was struck down. As such, it is actually still illegal to do so, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.

Granted, this leaves the marriage laws in most of these states in legal limbo, but the fact remains that these states do not have a legal apparatus in place to issue marriage licenses to gay couples – and simply "assuming" some unspoken provision for doing so short of the actual legislative process is grossly illegal. That this has actually been happening doesn't make it legal. Gay marriage still exists, in all but a handful of states, only as an extra-legislative stopgap measure being acceded to by people who often don't know any better. Kim Davis knew better, and refused to issue illegal marriage licenses – and this remains true whether her reasoning for it relies on her religious conscience or not.

The exact same argument applies at the federal level. Congress – which actually has no constitutional power to legislate in the realm of marriage, period, per the 10th amendment – has also made no law specifically making provision for gay marriage.

And short of this type of provision being made in the states, gay marriage will remain extra-legal. This is because the second argument used by the gay "marriage" storm troopers – that the Supreme Court "legalized" gay "marriage" – is also grossly false. The Supreme Court does not have the power to "legalize" anything. The Supreme Court cannot make law, nor can it change law. This is the role of the legislative branch ONLY. So despite the common belief to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not actually "legalize" gay marriage, nor could the Supreme Court legitimately "require all states to allow gay marriage." The Court simply did not, and still does not, have any power to do so.

Here's the dirty little secret about the Supreme Court – it can issue opinions, but even despite the flawed Marbury v. Madison ruling in which the court arrogated to itself powers of judicial review not defined for it in the Constitution, that is ALL it can do. The Court can't change laws. The Court can't even really "strike down" laws or remove them from the books (a legislative act), even though the political class has firmly entrenched this notion into the thinking of the country. All the Court can do it tell the other two branches of government that, in its opinion, a certain act or law is contrary to the Constitution. Of course, the states also have the concurrent right to do so as well, and can also declare an opinion of the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and void. The fact that the Court legislating from the bench has been accepted as common practice does not in any way legitimize it. Like slavery or abortion, a long-standing evil is still evil.

What this means is that Kim Davis didn't even "defy the Supreme Court" – for there was nothing to defy. The Court made no law for Kim Davis to break. The Court could not – and did not – compel the state of Kentucky to pass a statute specifically providing for people of the same gender to marry each other. She didn't "deny anyone their constitutional rights" because there was no constitutional right created for her to deny. Even in the majority ruling by the court in the Obergefell case, they made practically no reference to the actual Constitution, but instead to nebulous, feelings-oriented justifications like "dignity" (whatever that may mean). As the dissenting justices pointed out, the 14th amendment provided no "right" to gay "marriage." Indeed, gays had no actual constitutional standing for their arguments anywise – for they already had equal protection under the laws. Marriage laws existing prior to Obergefell and the various lower level court decisions applied to everyone equally – gay or straight – which is what "equal protection" means. There was no "constitutional right" in operation.

Based on the above, Kim Davis' detractors can't even make a credible argument that she was legitimately jailed for contempt of court. In pretty much every jurisdiction in America, the legal term "contempt of court" has a very specific meaning relating to the refusal to obey a lawful order of a court. And therein lies the problem for those trying to argue that she was in contempt of court – the order she was given by "Justice" Bunning was not lawful. The order she was defying was itself an unlawful order in that it was attempting to compel her to do something that is actually still illegal under the laws on the books in the state of Kentucky. Far from "abusing her office" and "failing to do her duty," Kim Davis was SPECIFICALLY doing her duty by obeying her state's current marriage laws and refusing to play along with the "make it up as we go" approach. Kim Davis wasn't jailed for contempt of court – she was jailed because she piqued the ego of an out-of-control judicial tyrant.

But it gets worse. Not only are liberals simply shooting their mouths off without knowing what they're talking about, but they are also in many cases being deceitful about this whole matter.

Probably the best example of this is how liberals will try to compare Kim Davis to George Wallace, and gay "marriage" to the civil rights movement of black Americans. If you actually make this argument, then you're an idiot. If you actually believe this argument, then you're a bigger idiot. Either way, it's a deceptive and insulting mischaracterization all around.

Think of it this way – black Americans really and truly got the short end of the stick, through no fault of their own, for centuries. Brought here as slaves. Suffering the inhumanity of involuntary servitude and being treated as someone else's personal property (which the Supreme Court affirmed several times, by the way, for all you "Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land!" folks out there). Finally, once they were freed and held out the promise of being equal before the law and accepted into American society, they ended getting shafted on that, too, and had to wait another century just to be able to widely exercise basic privileges of American citizenship like voting, while facing Ku Klux Klan terrorism, water hoses, dogs, and lynchings. So that is what we're talking about when we talk about the civil rights movement.

Again, keep in mind that black Americans are black Americans because they are born that way. They don't have a choice. That was their ticket in the genetic lottery. They don't get a say in that.

On the other hand, let's look at the gays. Gays are not born that way. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that they make, and choose to continue to make. Despite decades of trying, no one has been able to make a credible case for homosexuality as a genetic trait. They tend to try to get people to assume it is – but they don't actually have any evidence for that.

This being the case, then, what of the lot of homosexuals in America? Let's see – because they are a self-selected, behaviorally driven subset of the population, they tend to be drawn from people who have already been raised or are open to a decadent style of living. As a result, gays tend to be more wealthy and educated than average. They tend to occupy higher-paying jobs in coastal and white-collar urban areas. Their neighborhoods tend to be safer, with less crime and gang activity. They have obvious power in "soft social" areas such as media, politics, and academia. And while a slightly higher percentage of blacks may identify as homosexual or bisexual (~4.5% for blacks versus ~3.2% for whites), this still means that in absolute terms, there are over three and a half times as many white homosexuals or bisexuals as black. In short, the average homosexual is the very epitome of the stereotypical privileged, well to do white boy.

With that in mind, we should then observe that gays have always been able to exercise the same rights as everyone else. They've always been able to vote. They've always been able to run for office. They've always have the right to keep and bear arms, to speak freely, to assemble, to worship as they choose, to own property, to live where they want, to travel where they want, to be judged by a jury of their peers, and all the rest. And guess what? They also had equal access to the institution of marriage, too – a gay man could choose from the exact same pool of people as a straight man could. That IS equality before the law because your own personal preferences should not enter into the equation when it comes to making legislation.

Yet, these are all rights that black Americans often were not able to enjoy for long periods in their history here.

So don't even try to draw a comparison between the two. Doing so only shows that you are a clueless, tone deaf moron who is very, very bad at drawing historical analogies.

It doesn't stop here, however. We have also seen that many liberals are just simply evil – they purposefully, knowingly choose to take evil positions and act in evil ways when it comes to the issues surrounding the debate about Kim Davis and her actions.

Let's face it – the jailing of Kim Davis, and the fact that she was even at the center of this manufactured, made-for-TV controversy in the first place, is just the latest strike in a coordinated assault against the religious liberty of Americans. Let's look at the license denial that got her into hot water back on September 2. Two gay men, named Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz, asked for and were denied a marriage license. Guess what? These two are from Ohio. They're not even from Kentucky. In fact, Rowan County doesn't even border Ohio, so it's not like these guys just skipped across the border because Rowan County's clerk's office was more convenient. They had to drive through a substantial part of Kentucky to get there. So who goes to another state, to some rural county clerk's office in the middle of the backwoods Kentucky hill country, and shows up with camera crews, just to ask the county clerk for a marriage license, even though Ohio would theoretically have issued them right there at home?

Quite obviously, this whole thing was a planned hit from the beginning. And the whole point to it was specifically to create a controversy which could be used to force an issue and try to undermine freedom of conscience in this nation. The same can be said for all those times in which gays have tried to get Christian bakers or florists to service their gay "weddings" and then sued and harassed them legally when they refused. It's all about using political power to force others to do what you want them to do, and overthrowing the First Amendment in the process.

Anybody with a functioning brain in their heads knows this to be true. Look, Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz could easily have gotten a marriage license in Ohio. Even if they wanted to come to Kentucky, they could have gotten one in Louisville (Jefferson County), which is apparently emerging as a regional tourist mecca for gays in which to "honeymoon." It's not like Kim Davis was this insurmountable impediment to these two guys pretending to get married. Likewise, all those gays who were denied a cake or some flowers by a Christian business owner? They could have gotten the exactly same products from any number of other bakers or florists.

No, they're making purposeful choices as part of a concerted, coordinated effort to destroy the First Amendment.

Further, liberals are evil because they have finally found a case where absolutely, positively, under no circumstances can conscientious objection be allowed on the part of someone in the employ of a government at some level. Historically, liberals have loved the principle of conscientious objection. In fact, as others have pointed out, they routinely employ it when it's a liberal county sheriff illegally denying concealed carry permits to law-abiding citizens or city police refusing to enforce laws against illegal immigration. They love that kind of conscientious objection. But they don't like Kim Davis' kind, so she absolutely has to be punished for conscientiously objecting against a law that doesn't even exist.

The fact of the matter is that conscientious objection on moral, philosophical, and religious grounds has a long and honorable history in America. When we had the draft, conscientious objectors could refuse to fight based on their principles, and could find alternative service as stretcher bearers or other service roles. People can conscientiously object to serving on juries for a variety of reasons. Police officers have been able to object to certain specific duties based on their principled objections. That's the nice thing about a free society – even if you are an agent of the government, this doesn't mean you have to be forced to do something that violates your firmly held personal beliefs. There are other people available who can fulfill those duties. There are other duties that you can fulfill that don't clash with your deeply-held principles. In Kim Davis' case, there are plenty of other clerks and plenty of other counties (and as Blankenship and Cruz have shown, plenty of other states) who would issue a marriage license to a couple of guys pretending to get married.

In fact, attempting to force Kim Davis (and other clerks, judges, magistrates, etc.) to sanction gay "marriages," and telling them they either do it or quit their jobs, get fired, be impeached, or go to jail, comes dangerously close to being unconstitutional in its own right. See, while the Constitution does not contain any provision about marriage, gay or otherwise, it DOES contain a provision that positively forbids religious tests to be applied as a condition of serving in office. Simply put, you cannot require an office holder to be of a certain religion, or to profess a certain religious persuasion, as a prerequisite for holding that office. And that's what the gays and their supporters are essentially trying to do. They're trying to make Kim Davis, and other office holders who refuse to perform gay "marriages," adopt a certain position which necessitates that they reject a closely-held religious belief. It's a religious test. It's illegal. And while you might try to make the case that this wouldn't apply to a government employee who is hired on a wage basis, this does not apply to Kim Davis. Hers is an elected position. People like her are who the constitutional provision at that point was designed to protect.

So we see that the liberals on this issue are way, way off base. They're simply ignorant of what actually is at issue legally, most likely because they draw their information about it from a combination of buffoons like Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart and graphics they saw on Facebook. Many of them are simply employing false (and disgustingly so) associations and arguments to back up their emotional rhetoric. Lastly, many of them are also simply evil people who hate our constitutional freedoms, and are using Kim Davis and gay "marriage" as a wedge issue to undermine the liberties enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Any way and in all ways, these people are making a mockery of the ideal of an informed and principled electorate that is supposed to steer the ship of state.

“Kim Davis was SPECIFICALLY doing her duty by obeying her state’s current marriage laws and refusing to play along with the “make it up as we go” approach.”

She was willing to issue to gays if her name wasn’t on the license, to my understanding. That appeased her religious objection, according to her faith. It seems to me she would have not issued licenses with her name on them even if the KY legislature changed the law or there was a referendum or congress passed a law.

Freegards

They want to have government employees that will “just follow orders”

The should think carefully about how history remembers those who were “just following orders”

Finally, a substantive reasoned extensive argument on this, by a former (missed) FR poster as well.

Relevant: Dred Scott v. Sandford [Similarities to Obergefell vs. Hodges?]

Being a registered Democrat doesn’t mean beans about what she does behind the curtain.

Or did she actually say that she VOTED Democrat?

Or did she actually say that she VOTED Democrat?

That's why I said "apparently." There were reports.

Plus, I have known numerous Democrats that claim to be pro life or pro family or pro education or pro this or that all anathema to the Democratic Party. For these, actions speak. Words are lame.

Being a registered Democrat doesn’t mean beans about what she does behind the curtain.

Sure...if history has taught us anything, it has shown that we have every reason to believe that a registered Deomocrat does in fact vote Republican or indy in the privacy of the voting booth...

Every reason in the world...

>>"conservative" establishmentarian pundits like George Will

How does George's 2015 Rainbow Newspeak dictionary define "conservative"?

...and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous.. when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

>>The should think carefully about how history remembers those who were “just following orders”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8_jgiNqUc

Fwee Wodewick!

{ centurions snicker }

Revelation 16:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Yes...and he thought he was leaving the winning side for the losing side, which makes him all the more remarkable to me. (See my Freep Page)

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.