Why Kim Davis should not have resigned

Catholic Culture ^ | 9/8/15 | Phil Lawler

[markomalley]

So if she could not, in good conscience, issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, why didn’t Kim Davis resign from her job as county clerk? I’m not privy to her reasoning, but I have my own reasons why she should not be expected to resign.

Ordinarily, when a public official faces a crisis of conscience, the cause is either a change of responsibilities or a change of heart. Suppose a building inspector is asked to approve construction under a new code, and he firmly believes that the new buildings will be unsafe. If he cannot convince his superiors to amend the code, he should resign; he cannot carry out his responsibilities in good conscience. Or suppose (to use an example borrowed from a friend) an executioner experiences a religious conversion, and decides that capital punishment is immoral. He too should resign; he cannot carry out the duties for which he was hired.

Kim Davis cannot, in good conscience, certify that two people of the same sex are eligible for marriage. It is perfectly reasonable to argue—as Ryan Anderson has persuasively argued—that the courts should find some accommodation, so that she can preserve her integrity and yet homosexuals can obtain marriage licenses. Indeed, as I write this little essay, I learn that Judge Bunning, who sent her behind bars, has now ordered her release, provided that she no longer interferes with the process of issuing licenses. But that does not resolve the problem, in my view.

Imagine that you teach arithmetic in an elementary school. Imagine that a few misguided individuals take control of the local school committee, and push through a nonsensical new curriculum that makes it more difficult for students to learn the basics of math. You can complain, you can work to elect more sensible people to the school committee, but as long as the new curriculum is in force, you have to choose: comply with your new job description, or resign.

But now imagine that the school committee, drunk with power, rules that henceforth you must teach students that 2+2=5. You cannot do that. Moreover, you cannot meekly step aside and allow some other, more compliant teacher to tell young children that 2+2=5. This is not a matter of preference or of personal belief. It’s a matter of fact.

Kim Davis was asked to certify that two men, or two women, could be appropriate partners in a marriage. She could not, because to do so would contradict what she knew—what you and I know, what everyone has known for centuries—about the nature of marriage. Nor could she allow her deputies, working under her direct supervision, to testify to an untruth.

Father James Schall made this point for Catholic World Report:

Let’s begin with the word “marriage.” This word means the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting, raising, and educating their children in a home. If an “arrangement” between two human beings cannot instigate or beget a human child, it is not a marriage. If we insist on calling it a “marriage,” we speak equivocally. That is, we lie to ourselves about what is.
The word “belief” is not the appropriate word for marriage. Marriage is a fact, not a “belief.” To imply that it is a “belief” means, in modern context, that it has no grounding in reality. It is improper to call marriage a “belief.”

Virtually every newspaper account of the confrontation in Kentucky has made the point that Kim Davis is a Christian. That is true but irrelevant. It is not because of her religious faith that Davis understands the nature of marriage. Non-Christians, too, have always understood (until the mania of the past few years) that marriage is a union of man and woman. That understanding was firmly in place long before the time of Christ.

If a court can redefine marriage, it can redefine any institution touched by the law. If the term “marriage” means no more or less than what five justices happen to prefer at the moment, then the most fundamental institution in society is at risk.

Are you really married, or could the state suddenly declare your union invalid? Could the government take custody of your children, having ruled that there is nothing special about the bond between parent and child?

With the Obergefell decision the Supreme Court overthrew not only the laws of the several states, but the laws of logic as well. In a blatant display of illegitimate power, five justices ordered not merely a redefinition of “marriage” but a redefinition of reality. And to date, no one but Kim Davis has actively resisted that usurpation.

[markomalley]

You two may enjoy this...

[RitaOK]

I’ve said it before, Kim has shown us how to break the the back of “Gay” Lobby.

Like on everything else important, you stand your ground. Ground itself is a force of its own, imho.

[TexasGator]

“Kim Davis was asked to certify that two men, or two women, could be appropriate partners in a marriage. She could not, because to do so would contradict what she knew—what you and I know, what everyone has known for centuries—about the nature of marriage. “

Actually, her legal position was that to do so was in violation of Kentucky law and that the governor’s ‘edict’ was in violation of the Kentucky constitution.

[TexasGator]

Headline: Why Kim Davis should not have resigned

Article: why didn’t Kim Davis resign from her job as county clerk?

Did she resign or not?

[CGASMIA68]

Fer Sure,confusing title

[madison10]

Not that I’ve heard.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Not.

[Glad2bnuts]

What of my near elderly wife and eligible for SS self? We had children before our union, but now cannot have them and wouldn’t if we could. Is our relationship not a marriage?

[Glad2bnuts]

Kim Davis was asked to certify that two men, or two women, could be appropriate partners in a marriage. She could not, because to do so would contradict what she knew—what you and I know, what everyone has known for centuries—about the nature of marriage. Nor could she allow her deputies, working under her direct supervision, to testify to an untruth. Father James Schall made this point for Catholic World Report: These paragraphs are logical nano-thermite. They literally destroy the foundation of the argument for so called marriage equality. The only way to refute it is to twist the logic, lie, or lay on your back kicking and screaming with your hands over your ears. Let’s begin with the word “marriage.” This word means the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting, raising, and educating their children in a home. If an “arrangement” between two human beings cannot instigate or beget a human child, it is not a marriage. If we insist on calling it a “marriage,” we speak equivocally. That is, we lie to ourselves about what is. The word “belief” is not the appropriate word for marriage. Marriage is a fact, not a “belief.” To imply that it is a “belief” means, in modern context, that it has no grounding in reality. It is improper to call marriage a “belief.” Virtually every newspaper account of the confrontation in Kentucky has made the point that Kim Davis is a Christian. That is true but irrelevant. It is not because of her religious faith that Davis understands the nature of marriage. Non-Christians, too, have always understood (until the mania of the past few years) that marriage is a union of man and woman. That understanding was firmly in place long before the time of Christ. If a court can redefine marriage, it can redefine any institution touched by the law. If the term “marriage” means no more or less than what five justices happen to prefer at the moment, then the most fundamental institution in society is at risk. Are you really married, or could the state suddenly declare your union invalid? Could the government take custody of your children, having ruled that there is nothing special about the bond between parent and child? With the Obergefell decision the Supreme Court overthrew not only the laws of the several states, but the laws of logic as well. In a blatant display of illegitimate power, five justices ordered not merely a redefinition of “marriage” but a redefinition of reality. And to date, no one but Kim Davis has actively resisted that usurpation.

[Falconspeed]

I read Mr. Lawler every morning and appreciate his work.

“The Supreme Court overthrew not only the laws of the several states, but the laws of logic as well.” Sad but true.

Problem: Michael Medved concludes that Kim Davis was wrong to not sign the certificates, since the Supreme Court changed the certificates and the Supreme Court deserves respect.

Solution: Mark Levin argues that deleting the Obergefell decision will be very difficult, since the Supreme Court has a lot of power.

Personal view: The rallies for Kim Davis are healthy outlets for citizens who hurt and feel confused about the Obergefell case.

Prayer: Dear Lord, help us to love You more each day. Help us to defend marriage, protect children and care for the elderly. Amen.

[markomalley]

What of my near elderly wife and eligible for SS self? We had children before our union, but now cannot have them and wouldn’t if we could. Is our relationship not a marriage?

The natural law definition of marriage is: the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

Why the above definition necessarily excludes sodomite couples is that they are incapable of performing the "act of generation." (Even if all the plumbing worked properly, what they do with each other is incapable of producing progeny) An infertile heterosexual couple is fully capable of performing the "act of generation" even if they are putatively infertile.

[Glad2bnuts]

Kim Davis was asked to certify that two men, or two women, could be appropriate partners in a marriage. She could not, because to do so would contradict what she knew—what you and I know, what everyone has known for centuries—about the nature of marriage. Nor could she allow her deputies, working under her direct supervision, to testify to an untruth. Father James Schall made this point for Catholic World Report: Let’s begin with the word “marriage.” This word means the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting, raising, and educating their children in a home. If an “arrangement” between two human beings cannot instigate or beget a human child, it is not a marriage. If we insist on calling it a “marriage,” we speak equivocally. That is, we lie to ourselves about what is. The word “belief” is not the appropriate word for marriage. Marriage is a fact, not a “belief.” To imply that it is a “belief” means, in modern context, that it has no grounding in reality. It is improper to call marriage a “belief.” Virtually every newspaper account of the confrontation in Kentucky has made the point that Kim Davis is a Christian. That is true but irrelevant. It is not because of her religious faith that Davis understands the nature of marriage. Non-Christians, too, have always understood (until the mania of the past few years) that marriage is a union of man and woman. That understanding was firmly in place long before the time of Christ. If a court can redefine marriage, it can redefine any institution touched by the law. If the term “marriage” means no more or less than what five justices happen to prefer at the moment, then the most fundamental institution in society is at risk. Are you really married, or could the state suddenly declare your union invalid? Could the government take custody of your children, having ruled that there is nothing special about the bond between parent and child? With the Obergefell decision the Supreme Court overthrew not only the laws of the several states, but the laws of logic as well. In a blatant display of illegitimate power, five justices ordered not merely a redefinition of “marriage” but a redefinition of reality. And to date, no one but Kim Davis has actively resisted that usurpation.

These paragraphs are logical nano-thermite. They literally destroy the foundation of the argument for so called marriage equality. The only way to refute it is to twist the logic, lie, or lay on your back kicking and screaming with your hands over your ears.

Moderators, please remove previous comment from me...it is duplicate and mistake ridden. Thanks....

[Glad2bnuts]

Logical, and I agree. The commentary made it seem like a marriage can never be unless children result.

[saleman]

Whew! That let’s me off the hook. I’m 54 and don’t want kids. My girlfriend is 44 and can’t have anymore. If she mentions marriage again I’ll have her read this.

[DoodleDawg]

It is not because of her religious faith that Davis understands the nature of marriage.

I think Kim Davis would be the first to disagree with that statement. It was precisely her Christian faith that gave her the conviction to oppose the same-sex marriage, and anyone who says otherwise does her a disservice.

[Glad2bnuts]

Medved???? So much negative in my mind to say about him and his beliefs and politics, so little time.

I look at it with this in mind. The Founders of this country were willing to lose all of their worldly goods AND their lives for what they believed in. Americans are not even willing to risk a couple of days away from their TV, and a couple of hundred dollar fine for theirs. Medved has few beliefs that he would not compromise if it meant a political victory by his side IMO.

This country cannot last much longer without a backbone. It is like we have had our skeletal structure dissolved. Which is the way that a scorpions sting kills and digests its prey.

Isn’t it in Revelation where the scorpion will sting, and torment for a time, but not kill? Has America been “stung” in some manner that has destroyed our spine?...just a random weird thought, from a random and weird mind...

[lee martell]

Headline should have said “Why Kim Davis Was Correct Not To Resign.” Otherwise, you start dealing with unstated double-negative statements. Needlessly confusing, unless that was the intent, to provoke you just enough to click on the story.

[DoodleDawg]

The natural law definition of marriage is: the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

That wasn't the definition that James Schall used. Maybe you should correct him?

[markomalley]

I think Kim Davis would be the first to disagree with that statement.

Probably so, but the fact of the matter is that it did not require her to be a Christian in order to understand the nature of marriage.

I think that is what one gets when one reads a little bit of context into the extract:

It is not because of her religious faith that Davis understands the nature of marriage. Non-Christians, too, have always understood (until the mania of the past few years) that marriage is a union of man and woman. That understanding was firmly in place long before the time of Christ.