Posted on 09/03/2015 4:57:23 PM PDT by markomalley
The main contestant on this week’s edition of Internet outrage theater is Kim Davis, a Democratic clerk in Kentucky who is refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Davis, who was arrested by police today for not issuing the licenses, says her religious beliefs prohibit her from rubber-stamping applications for same-sex marriage licenses:
U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals until she complies, saying fines were not enough to force her to comply with his previous order to provide the paperwork to all couples and allowing her to defy the order would create a “ripple effect.”
“Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” Bunning said. “Oaths mean things.”
Davis, who was tearful at times, testified that she could not obey the order because God’s law trumps the court.
“My conscience will not allow it,” she said. “God’s moral law convicts me and conflicts with my duties.”
Davis’s arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws. Take, for example, Democrat Gavin Newsom, who is currently the California lieutenant governor. Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses:
Newsom unleashed a political and legal tempest February 12 when he ordered the city clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Nearly 3,200 same-sex couples have gotten licenses in a nine-day frenzy that included thousands of family, friends and soon-to-be betrothed couples ringing City Hall, sometimes for days.
Just like Kim Davis, who is an elected Democrat, Newsom justified his lawlessness by citing his own conscience and beliefs about right and wrong rather than deferring to the actual laws of his state.
If you look for evidence of gay rights advocates chastising Newsom for his blatant lawlessness, you won’t find it. Because it doesn’t exist. You similarly won’t find any evidence of these principled law enforcement purists chastising California state officials for refusing to enforce or defend the Prop 8 ballot initiative in California, which was passed overwhelmingly by California voters.
And don’t you dare look for evidence of high-minded progressives demanding prison sentences for the Washington, D.C. bureaucrats who openly defied federal court orders to issue concealed carry permits in the nation’s capital. Nope. Instead of enforcing the law as handed down in multiple Supreme Court cases, D.C. officials kept manufacturing new reasons to justify their refusal to comply with federal gun laws.
Don’t even get me started on federal laws regarding drug possession. You won’t find progressives calling for the prosecution of scores of Colorado officials in open defiance of federal drug bans, or calling for the heads of federal officials who refuse to enforce federal drug laws in Colorado. No, those federal laws are icky. Sure, they’re indisputably the law of the land. And sure, officials have a duty to equally apply and enforce standing law, but icky laws are different. Only non-icky laws need to be enforced.
Perhaps natural marriage advocates should abandon their religious liberty arguments and instead declare whole cities to be marriage sanctuaries. That strategy has worked splendidly for open borders advocates. Who cares what the federal law requires when it comes to illegal immigration? Those laws restricting citizenship rights to citizens are icky, so they don’t need to be enforced. Sanctuary cities are great, so long as they provide sanctuary from icky laws of which progressives disapprove.
Oh, and those laws regarding the proper handling of classified national security information? Meh. Yeah, those are icky, too. So lay off Hillary Clinton, you dirty law truther. Who cares if she ignored clear law and policy by setting up an unsecured, unsanctioned e-mail server which was then used to house and distribute classified information? Who cares if President Barack Obama himself signed the executive order mandating the protection of national security information, the unauthorized release of which could damage American safety and security? Who cares if she intentionally sent classified information to people outside the government who were never cleared to receive it? Progressives think that law is icky, too, so you’ll have to excuse them from not caring about Hillary’s blatant violation of it (laws regarding the handling of classified information are totally not icky, though, when applied to Republicans like David Petraeus or Scooter Libby).
When you really think about it, though, this whole kerfuffle is obviously the fault of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses. She shouldn’t known better. She should’ve thought this whole thing through.
If Kim Davis really wanted to avoid the ire and attention of progressives and their media allies, she should’ve just videotaped herself killing babies and then selling their organs. Then she could operate with total impunity.
Amen to your thoughts.
The headline contains a misnomer, one that is damaging to our position.
Kim Davis is not breaking the law. She is upholding the law.
It is the courts who have become lawless. They are demanding that she breach her oath of office by putting her signature on a fraudulent document.
Cite the LAW in question as enacted by the legislature.
Judges don’t make law. Neither do governors or presidents.
And none of these people have the lawful power to subvert or supersede the constitution or our unalienable rights.
You make me puke.
I “spit” on your law.
A marriage is between one man and one woman.
Judges’ rulings are law. See e.g. citizens united, hobby lobby, heller.
This logic means that, even though Heller held people have a second amendment right to firearms subject to valid permitting requirements, a sheriff or other relevant local authority can states can defeat the 2d amendment right by refusing to issue permits because their religion forbids it.
Although I have a lot of sympathy with the emotion of all this its simply not a public officials prerogative to pick and chose what part of their administrative duties they will perform based on their religious belief's. Everyone is forced to pay taxes and this clerk draws her salary from those who agree and those who disagree with her position. Issuing permits/marriage licenses etc., is not a discretionary function of this clerk's job. It's an administrative duty that all the people in her county are forced to pay for regardless of whether they agree with her personal belief's or not
One of the nightmare scenarios I see coming out of this is that it becomes acceptable for public officials like this clerk to refuse to perform their administrative duties based on their religious belief's, is that moon-bat clerk decides that they will not issue concealed or open carry permits in their county with, the backing of the majority in that county, based on their belief that all killing is wrong and issuing said permits will at least indirectly lead to someone’s death.
No doubt most everyone here would scream for that clerk's job.
Like it or not this clerk does not have the discretion to refuse to perform an administrative task based on their personal religious belief's. This is one of those issues that will come back to bite Conservatives in the a** big time.
“Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” Bunning said. “Oaths mean things.”
He's saying she freely took an oath to exchange her rights for privileges when she was sworn in, and so now calling on her rights is ineffective.
Dred Scott? Roe v Wade?
If you’re defending the unconstitutional rulings made by lawless progresive judges, you’re on the wrong site.
We have not yet begun to fight!
Well, the Left faces no consequences when it ignores the law. Obama, Holder, the mayors of sanctuary cities, the clerks who passed out licenses when it was blatantly illegal. The media even makes heroes of them.
But somehow a conservative or a Christian has to quietly oblige every ridiculous motion and every ridiculous ruling by some depraved Federal judge? To hell with that! That’s surrender. The Rule of Law is dead. Dead as a doornail in this country. And any Christian or any conservative better wake up to that fact before they are shuffled off into boxcars. Total nullification, total resistence is the only answer.
Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” Bunning said. “Oaths mean things.”
Earth to Judge Bunning: She did take an oath - To uphold the U. S. Constitution AND the Constitution of the State of Kentucky and she is doing exactly that. Or do you imagine you and the Supreme Soviet also have the authority to invalidate or nullify State Constitutions?
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1
The state of Kentucky is paying her wages, not some dimwit court.
Our system only works if you respect the process. You don’t get to pick and choose the court orders you respect.
Setting aside any moral claims on why you should respect the rule of law, if you don’t, the other side won’t either, and we end up in a very bad place.
The correct answer to Dred Scott, an abhorrent decision, was not to go John Brown or Nat Turner, but to change the law, just like the correct answer to Roe is to engage in peaceful protest and political efforts, not violence.
Does the Clerk have the discretion to disobey the Kentucky Constitution that she swore on oath to uphold?
Actually, that’s exactly what the US Constitution provides, though I think the founders would be amused at being called the “Supreme Soviet”:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause
An honest question.
Who today is more inclined to break the rules?
Conservatives or Liberals?
Break the rules and even some laws that they find violate their constitutional rights?
We must ask, “Who is currently writing those rules?”
Does the left still think it is the “right” that is in charge?
I don’t think so.
By and large, Conservatives are or have tended to be law abiding citizens, while it was the liberals that pushed the boundaries of what was both “lawful or acceptable”.
It seems to me that the tide has turned.
There was a time in which the freak parade was the group challenging the “authority” and now that they are the authority some seem to be happy making the rules and forcing people to follow them.
I think we have come full circle.
It explains the political rise of both libertarians and virtually any candidate that is “outside” of the system.
Personally, I want to break their rules.
Do Democrats/liberals really want to follow politicians that want to create more rules?
So many political songs of the 1960’s and 70’s where anti-establishment and now that they are the establishment, do those feelings still apply?
Rebel Rebel?
I see no difference between what she is doing and cities like San Fransisco declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens except federal marshals aren’t taking the city supervisors off to jail.
Do you see the unintended irony in his statement, though? To WHAT did she swear allegiance when she took the oath?
Cordially,
Look, we’re not going to have judges overturning God’s law or the laws of nature or upsetting all of social history just to appease a bunch of perverts.
If you want to fight against us on this, please take your business elsewhere.
The SCOTUS is in the wrong here and must be defied!
This woman is being jailed for the “crime” of loving Jesus and remaining faithful to the Word of God.
And we’re all subject to the same tyranny and persecution if we let it go.
And that’s the bottom line.
Americans will not stand for fascism!
You’re either with us in fighting this injustice or against us.
The other side already does not respect the rule of law, and you are right, it is a bad place. The USSC opened this can of worms by asserting authority that was not theirs. They have shown the true contempt for the rule of law. As Scalia noted, some of us will notice and cease to tolerate it.
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.